Wires crossing overhead my property.

[fotonix]

HNY to all!

I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.

Is permission required for electricity lines to cross overhead one's
property? They currently cross over my garden, which limits what
trees and so on I can grow there.

All constructive replies welcomed!

J.

[Steve O]

Post by fotonix
HNY to all!
I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.
Is permission required for electricity lines to cross overhead one's
property? They currently cross over my garden, which limits what
trees and so on I can grow there.
All constructive replies welcomed!
J.

Why would the wires stop you from growing a tree?
The tree will simply grow around them, won't they?
(Or it will push the wires up, I suppose)
If Scottish Power have a problem with the tree interfering with the wires,
then maybe they should think about moving the wires.
I don't see how they could compel you to remove the tree.
Just a suggestion, and meant as a constructive one

[fotonix]

Post by Steve O

Post by fotonix
HNY to all!
I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.
Is permission required for electricity lines to cross overhead one's
property?  They currently cross over my garden, which limits what
trees and so on I can grow there.
All constructive replies welcomed!
J.

Why would the wires stop you from growing a tree?
The tree will simply grow around them, won't they?
(Or it will push the wires up, I suppose)

The tree is not the main issue - although I am grateful for your
opinion, and you are right that the wires would push and possibly
damage the cables in time (this occurs at my parents-in-law's place,
and the company will visit occasionally to control the tree's growth).

The main issue is whether the network needs permission now to have
their wires cross overhead my garden. There is a wayleave that I am
refusing to agree to (it is transferable, so I do not have to agree to
it), which covers 'apparatus for the transmission of electricity'. At
the moment, it's the pole and stay that is the main cause of concern,
and they are very likely to be removed shortly because I don't agree
with £7 a year compensation. So, the question is: will they need to
run their wires away from my garden, or do they have a right to pass
overhead without seeking permission?

Thanks,
J.

[Blah]

Post by fotonix

Post by Steve O

Post by fotonix
HNY to all!
I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.
Is permission required for electricity lines to cross overhead one's
property? They currently cross over my garden, which limits what
trees and so on I can grow there.
All constructive replies welcomed!
J.

Why would the wires stop you from growing a tree?
The tree will simply grow around them, won't they?
(Or it will push the wires up, I suppose)

The tree is not the main issue - although I am grateful for your
opinion, and you are right that the wires would push and possibly
damage the cables in time (this occurs at my parents-in-law's place,
and the company will visit occasionally to control the tree's growth).
The main issue is whether the network needs permission now to have
their wires cross overhead my garden. There is a wayleave that I am
refusing to agree to (it is transferable, so I do not have to agree to
it), which covers 'apparatus for the transmission of electricity'. At
the moment, it's the pole and stay that is the main cause of concern,
and they are very likely to be removed shortly because I don't agree
with £7 a year compensation. So, the question is: will they need to
run their wires away from my garden, or do they have a right to pass
overhead without seeking permission?
Thanks,
J.

Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.

[fotonix]

Post by Blah
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.

Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.

Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.

Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

J.

[Blah]

Post by fotonix

Post by Blah
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.

Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.

What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.

What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"

If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!

I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

[miss pitstop]

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that th
wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded mor
money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowner
to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. A
a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way t
get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given tw
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats ho
you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wir
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyer
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in th
eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. N
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a publi
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines i
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden


--
miss pitstop

[Richard Bird]

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.
miss pitstop

I would'nt be too fussed about having a pole or pylon in my garden even if
they offered £5000 a year and i certainly would not buy a house with one on

[Blah]

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Erm, there is an 'alleged health implication'.

Whilst I too would be suspicious of a 132,000 volt line running through
my back garden, the typical voltages running are not in this ballpark.

Anyone who is worried about cables in garden better rip out their ring
main too!

[Peter Hucker]

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

[steve robinson]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high voltage
cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

[Peter Hucker]

Post by steve robinson

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high voltage
cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

According to current health and safety bollocks, EVERYTHING is bad for you. Best thing to do is ignore it and carry on.

[steve robinson]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:23:32 -0000, steve robinson

Post by steve robinson

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high
voltage cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

According to current health and safety bollocks, EVERYTHING is bad for you. Best
thing to do is ignore it and carry on.

Yes the tradesman that taught me said that same statement about asbestos , he later
died of asbestosis after several years of living in absolute agony

[Peter Hucker]

Post by steve robinson

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:23:32 -0000, steve robinson

Post by steve robinson

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high
voltage cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

According to current health and safety bollocks, EVERYTHING is bad for you. Best
thing to do is ignore it and carry on.

Yes the tradesman that taught me said that same statement about asbestos , he later
died of asbestosis after several years of living in absolute agony

Breathing in very fine dust repeatedly is obviously bad for you. As is jumping off a cliff. A bit of electricity closeby is not.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

|
--====|====--
|
.-"""""-.
.'_________'.
/_/_|__|__|_\_\
;'-._ _.-';
,--------------------| `-. .-' |--------------------,
``""--..__ ___ ; ' ; ___ __..--""``
`"-// \\.._\ /_..// \\-"`
\\_// '._ _.' \\_//
`"` ``---`` `"`

[Yellow]

Post by steve robinson

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high voltage
cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/index.cfm

[Peter Hucker]

Post by Yellow

Post by steve robinson

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high voltage
cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/index.cfm

Looking into the POSSIBLE health effects of mobile phones, base stations, electricity power lines and pylons.

[Yellow]

Post by Peter Hucker

Post by Yellow

Post by steve robinson

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high voltage
cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/index.cfm

Looking into the POSSIBLE health effects of mobile phones, base stations, electricity power lines and pylons.

Indeed - it fundamentally says the jury is still out.

[Peter Hucker]

Post by Yellow

Post by Peter Hucker

Post by Yellow

Post by steve robinson

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:55:52 -0000, miss pitstop

fotonix wrote:--
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.-
Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.-
What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"
If that was the case, no-one would buy anything - most gardens have
sewers, electric cables, fresh water pipes etc etc in them that buyers
could get upset about - can't build a garage, pipe in way, offer them
£5k less!
I'm not saying that a cable or wire in a garden has no effect on value,
but just so miniscule that £7 a year is 'better than a poke in the eye'.
What would make you happy? £70, £700, £7000?

If they are wiling to remove the pole then have it removed. No
compensation can pay you for the inconvenience of having a public
service rights on your property.
Also, there is an added health implication to electricity lines in
close proximity which I would not like to have in my garden.

Bullshit.

There is growing evidence that the electromagmetic fields generated by high voltage
cables can have an affect on some peoples health .

http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/index.cfm

Looking into the POSSIBLE health effects of mobile phones, base stations, electricity power lines and pylons.

Indeed - it fundamentally says the jury is still out.

It's best to ignore treehuggers.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A big-city, U.S. lawyer went duck hunting in rural Canada. He shot a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence. As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing.
The litigator responded, "I shot a duck and it fell into this field, and I'm going to retrieve it."
The old farmer replied, "This is my property, and you are not coming over here."
The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in the U.S. and, if you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own."
The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we do things in Canada. We settle small disagreements like this with the Canadian Three-Kick Rule."
The lawyer asked, "What is the Canadian Three-Kick Rule?"
The farmer replied, "Well, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times, and so on, back and forth, until someone gives up."
The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger so he agreed to abide by the local custom. The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the city feller. His first kick hit the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees. His second kick nearly wiped the man's nose off his face. The barrister was flat on his belly when the farmer's third kick to a kidney nearly caused him to give up.
The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet and said, "Okay, you old coot! Now, it's my turn!"
The old farmer grinned and said, "Naw, I give up. You can have the duck!"

[Alex Heney]

Post by Blah

Post by fotonix

Post by Blah
Why are you so anti wire? Is it just the £7? Bear in mind that the wires
have to go somewhere, and if you and everyone else demanded more money,
the consumers will just pay more.

Yes, you're quite right, but it's not quite that simple. First, I
haven't said I won't have the wire across my land if it is necessary.
Second, the company has not been willing to negotiate or take into
account loss of value to the property in any way. That fact has even
been pointed out by political committees in London, where the paltry
sum on offer is highlighted as a strong disincentive for landowners to
have poles on their land.
Whilst I agree entirely that nobody wins in a compensation culture, I
am dealing, after all, with a private company that makes profit. As a
mere 'nobody' in monetary terms, I am not in a position to help them
make even more profit through accepting token payments.
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.
J.

What loss of property value! Are you seriously thinking that given two
identical properties, eg you and the neighbouring semi (if thats how you
property lies) would have DIFFERENT values, merely because of a wire
crossing it? Balmy! Your mountain, everyone's elses molehill.
What you are suggesting is that on the point of agreeing to buy your
house, someone would turn around and say "Sorry, £5k less because of
that wire!"

Well we are looking to move house at the moment, and have discounted
quite a number of properties due to power cables running close (we are
looking only at rural properties, and I am talking about the cables
that run on huge pylons though, so not *quite* the same).

But of course any "reduction in value" of his property will already
have been there when he bought it, so he is really looking to increase
the value rather than preventing a decrease.

[Svenne]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.

You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

Svenne

[fotonix]

Thanks very much to Wanderer for the lovely reply.

Ordinarily, I'd take a lot of heed of that advice, but here is what
has actually happened today, which is considerably more constructive
and positive than Wanderer might suggest:

Before Xmas, I told the network I was very likely to refuse the
Wayleave if they didn't up the payment to something more appropriate.

They called me today to say that they couldn't pay any more. I told
them I was taking advice from negotiators on this, and would issue my
final decision after doing so.

Two hours later, an engineer from the network arrived to assess the
changes needed if I rejected the Wayleave. This reinforces the strong
hints I received from their manager than they were preparing to remove
the offending pole. It seems barmy to me, but rather than pay a
sensible amount of, oh, a few tens per year towards my car tax, they
prefer to spend thousands changing things around. A lifetime of
payments to me would never see that money matched, so I can't see it
makes any financial sense at all.

Reading Wanderer's excellent reply, I think I must be in a lucky
position where the company is giving-in without going through the
Necessary Wayleave pathway. Whilst I accept that the pole isn't going
to have a huge impact on the value of the house, it will have some
impact, and certainly more than £7 per year (this thread has wandered
a bit, but on related topics - I've a pole and stay in my garden, very
close to the house (and shallow foundations) not just wires overhead.)

The last option is that the network offer me a Permanent Rights
agreement, with a suitable compensation for never having to go through
this nonsense again. I'd settle for a few hundred quid one-off
payment, but we haven't discussed this option yet. If they throw that
out, I'll just be having the pole removed, which, as I say, they are
already preparing to do in the event I reject the Wayleave.

Again, Wanderer, thanks for the valuable reply.

J.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

"fotonix" <***@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:489c66d3-f214-4497-abb0-***@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Thanks very much to Wanderer for the lovely reply.

Ordinarily, I'd take a lot of heed of that advice, but here is what
has actually happened today, which is considerably more constructive
and positive than Wanderer might suggest:

Before Xmas, I told the network I was very likely to refuse the
Wayleave if they didn't up the payment to something more appropriate.

They called me today to say that they couldn't pay any more. I told
them I was taking advice from negotiators on this, and would issue my
final decision after doing so.

Two hours later, an engineer from the network arrived to assess the
changes needed if I rejected the Wayleave. This reinforces the strong
hints I received from their manager than they were preparing to remove
the offending pole. It seems barmy to me, but rather than pay a
sensible amount of, oh, a few tens per year towards my car tax, they
prefer to spend thousands changing things around. A lifetime of
payments to me would never see that money matched, so I can't see it
makes any financial sense at all.

Reading Wanderer's excellent reply, I think I must be in a lucky
position where the company is giving-in without going through the
Necessary Wayleave pathway. Whilst I accept that the pole isn't going
to have a huge impact on the value of the house, it will have some
impact, and certainly more than £7 per year (this thread has wandered
a bit, but on related topics - I've a pole and stay in my garden, very
close to the house (and shallow foundations) not just wires overhead.)

The last option is that the network offer me a Permanent Rights
agreement, with a suitable compensation for never having to go through
this nonsense again. I'd settle for a few hundred quid one-off
payment, but we haven't discussed this option yet. If they throw that
out, I'll just be having the pole removed, which, as I say, they are
already preparing to do in the event I reject the Wayleave.

-------------

I beleive the usual compensation for a permanent wayleave is 10 times the
annual rate. Thus you would still only get you £70.

[fotonix]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
I beleive the usual compensation for a permanent wayleave is 10 times the
annual rate.  Thus you would still only get you £70.

That's interesting information. I hadn't expected much!

Today's update is that the network is doing the sensible thing -
looking at how much it will cost them to remove the pole and change
things around, and then may make a better offer of annual payments.
Seeing as it will cost them several thousand pounds to change things,
I am expecting considerably better than £70.

The problem with the networks today is that they are no longer
publicly-owned operations, where I would be much more ready to allow
the pole, but private companies, making a profit. Seeing as they
don't share out some of their profit to landowners with poles, I'm not
ready to accept jellybean money as suitable and sufficient
compensation.

As for induction, I think you would find it very hard to argue that
such a thing was not illegal. In many third world countries, people
just connect up to the nearest pole anyway. In their situation, you
can call it entirely justified.

J.

[Blah]

Post by fotonix

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
I beleive the usual compensation for a permanent wayleave is 10 times the
annual rate. Thus you would still only get you £70.

That's interesting information. I hadn't expected much!
Today's update is that the network is doing the sensible thing -
looking at how much it will cost them to remove the pole and change
things around, and then may make a better offer of annual payments.
Seeing as it will cost them several thousand pounds to change things,
I am expecting considerably better than £70.

Don't get your hopes up! I'd quite expect them to do the work at
whatever cost, rather than give you more than a token amount.
After all, if they pay YOU a reasonable amount, it would soon get around
and then EVERYONE would demand a reasonable amount and it would cost
them a fortune in the longer term.

As it is, it won't cost THEM much to do the work, as the staff,
overheads etc are already being met, - they'll just do the work during a
quiet spell, they just need a bit of extra copper wire .

Post by fotonix
The problem with the networks today is that they are no longer
publicly-owned operations, where I would be much more ready to allow
the pole, but private companies, making a profit. Seeing as they
don't share out some of their profit to landowners with poles, I'm not
ready to accept jellybean money as suitable and sufficient
compensation.
As for induction, I think you would find it very hard to argue that
such a thing was not illegal. In many third world countries, people
just connect up to the nearest pole anyway. In their situation, you
can call it entirely justified.
J.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
I beleive the usual compensation for a permanent wayleave is 10 times the
annual rate. Thus you would still only get you £70.

That's interesting information. I hadn't expected much!

Today's update is that the network is doing the sensible thing -
looking at how much it will cost them to remove the pole and change
things around, and then may make a better offer of annual payments.
Seeing as it will cost them several thousand pounds to change things,
I am expecting considerably better than £70.


------------

I think you may be disappointed. Although, as you note, it may cost them
thousands to shift your pole, they are unlikely to increase the wayleave
payment. This is because they pay the same (or a similar) derisory amount
to everyone where they have a wayleave. If they offer you more then a
precident is established for everyone else to want more and that make
shifting the pole an attractive option.

[Cynic]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:17:39 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two hours later, an engineer from the network arrived to assess the
changes needed if I rejected the Wayleave. This reinforces the strong
hints I received from their manager than they were preparing to remove
the offending pole. It seems barmy to me, but rather than pay a
sensible amount of, oh, a few tens per year towards my car tax, they
prefer to spend thousands changing things around. A lifetime of
payments to me would never see that money matched, so I can't see it
makes any financial sense at all.

They may well be thinking that giving in to your request would make
them hostage to fortune. What's to stop you demanding more money next
year - and more the year after that until it *does* result in a
greater outlay than shifting the pole now? And if they increase the
compensation to yourself, they may find themselves inuundated with
1000 similar requests from other people who have heard that they can
get more money simply for the asking.

IOW they want to shift the pole in order to rid themselves of an
"awkward customer".

[Steve O]

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.
Svenne

That , I believe, would constitute an offence of dishonestly abstracting
electricity.

[Johnno]

Post by Steve O

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.
Svenne

That , I believe, would constitute an offence of dishonestly abstracting
electricity.

How? If the the electricity company wire wasn't there...

On the other hand could the pp could sue for unwanted V in his line?

[Steve O]

Post by Johnno

Post by Steve O

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.
Svenne

That , I believe, would constitute an offence of dishonestly abstracting
electricity.

How? If the the electricity company wire wasn't there...

Read what Svenne said again.

[Blah]

Post by Steve O

Post by Johnno

Post by Steve O

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.
Svenne

That , I believe, would constitute an offence of dishonestly abstracting
electricity.

How? If the the electricity company wire wasn't there...

Read what Svenne said again.

If someone choses to run a cable and there happens to be a electricity
cable near by, it is for the electricity company to stop the leakage -
much as if my neighbour leaves his curtains open I can get free tv...

[Svenne]

Post by Steve O

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

That , I believe, would constitute an offence of dishonestly abstracting
electricity.

Surely he can put up wires wherever he wants on his own property. If
the power company doesn't like their line being next to his, they can
move it.

Svenne

[Steve O]

Post by Svenne

Post by Steve O

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

That , I believe, would constitute an offence of dishonestly abstracting
electricity.

Surely he can put up wires wherever he wants on his own property. If
the power company doesn't like their line being next to his, they can
move it.

It entirely depends upon his intentions.
He can put wires on his property anywhere he likes, but if his intention is
to set up the induction rigging to dishonestly obtain electricity which
doesn't belong to him, he'd be as guilty as if he'd tapped into the circuit
to draw the electricity off with wires.

[The Wanderer]

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

[fotonix]

"...so he is really looking to increase
the value rather than preventing a decrease"

That, my friend, is an assertion based on little truth. Loss of value
is a term I think the power companies should take into account, as
they do with loss of productivity to agriculture. But they do not.
If you live in the countryside, you soon realise that farmers get
planning, money, sympathy and a whole lot more because that is how
people in the city see the countryside - farming. Forget it if you're
a microbusiness or just eking out an existence as a self-employed
person - that doesn't, apparently, constitute the countryside in the
minds of desk fliers, so go swing!

No, Loss of Value is a term I use as one of my only negotiating levers
against the power company. In fact, we have little or no view to
selling this property for a very long time.

That, plus the fact that the network has tried everything from
feigning ignorance to saying we'll lose our supply. They are not nice
people!

J.

[Svenne]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?

If a wire were placed running parallel to an overhead power line, near
the one of the lines carryng an outside phase so being nearest to that
phase and further away from the other two phases, then an EMF would be
induced in that wire. This is pure physics and is indisputable.

The only question which remains is how much power could be transferred
by induction to that wire. This is determined by three conditions: the
distance of the parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically
tapped into, its length and the current being carried by the power
line being tapped into.

If all three were of high enough value, quite a bit of power might be
transferred, maybe enough to have some impact on yearly electricity
bills, especially if the power being harvested were used to charge a
battery connected to an inverter thereby harvesting electricity 24/7.

Even the US military are working on ways to electromagnetically obtain
electricity from power lines for spy planes:

www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=29652

Svenne

[Steve O]

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?
If a wire were placed running parallel to an overhead power line, near
the one of the lines carryng an outside phase so being nearest to that
phase and further away from the other two phases, then an EMF would be
induced in that wire. This is pure physics and is indisputable.
The only question which remains is how much power could be transferred
by induction to that wire. This is determined by three conditions: the
distance of the parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically
tapped into, its length and the current being carried by the power
line being tapped into.
If all three were of high enough value, quite a bit of power might be
transferred, maybe enough to have some impact on yearly electricity
bills, especially if the power being harvested were used to charge a
battery connected to an inverter thereby harvesting electricity 24/7.
Even the US military are working on ways to electromagnetically obtain
www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=29652
Svenne

I thought you might have been right.
A little while ago, I heard about a company developing a wireless domestic
electrical system.
As far as I recall, it consisted of a metal dome in the loft from which
electricity was beamed wirelessly to all of the devices in your home.
Think they might have hit a snag with EMF/cancer implications though.

[Svenne]

Post by Steve O

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?
If a wire were placed running parallel to an overhead power line, near
the one of the lines carryng an outside phase so being nearest to that
phase and further away from the other two phases, then an EMF would be
induced in that wire. This is pure physics and is indisputable.
The only question which remains is how much power could be transferred
by induction to that wire. This is determined by three conditions: the
distance of the parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically
tapped into, its length and the current being carried by the power
line being tapped into.
If all three were of high enough value, quite a bit of power might be
transferred, maybe enough to have some impact on yearly electricity
bills, especially if the power being harvested were used to charge a
battery connected to an inverter thereby harvesting electricity 24/7.
Even the US military are working on ways to electromagnetically obtain
www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=29652

I thought you might have been right.

Well, an oversight did creep into what I wrote. The distance of the
parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically tapped into has
to be as low as possible, not as high as possible. The other
conditions stand.

That's what can happen when you rattle off replies fast.

Svenne

[Reentrant]

They tried this on Mythbusters. Wikipedia says: "... the MythBusters created
a large coil of wire, and wrapped it around a PVC pipe box. They then
hoisted it underneath powerlines in order to "catch" some electricity. They
were able to obtain about eight millivolts of electricity. They determined
that siphoning a practically useful amount of electricity in such a manner
would require thousands of pounds of wire, and would be extremely
impractical and dangerous, as well as being illegal".

[Svenne]

Post by Reentrant
They tried this on Mythbusters. Wikipedia says: "... the MythBusters created
a large coil of wire, and wrapped it around a PVC pipe box. They then
hoisted it underneath powerlines in order to "catch" some electricity. They
were able to obtain about eight millivolts of electricity. They determined
that siphoning a practically useful amount of electricity in such a manner
would require thousands of pounds of wire, and would be extremely
impractical and dangerous, as well as being illegal".

Here's a video clip of the Mythbusters experiment

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/6535-mythbusters-free-energy-video.htm

That's not the way I would have done it. Instead of using a local
coil, they should have run the power harvesting wire in a line
parallel to the power line. Even if the amount of power harvested is
small, the setup can run 24/7 to keep a battery charged so that power
can be harvested even when it is not being used.

Svenne

[Cynic]

Post by Svenne
That's not the way I would have done it. Instead of using a local
coil, they should have run the power harvesting wire in a line
parallel to the power line. Even if the amount of power harvested is
small, the setup can run 24/7 to keep a battery charged so that power
can be harvested even when it is not being used.

I very much doubt that you would charge the battery at a higher rate
than is possible with a small solar panel, and the apparatus would
probably cost you more than such a solar panel (as well as being far
more unsightly).

[Svenne]

Post by Cynic

Post by Svenne
That's not the way I would have done it. Instead of using a local
coil, they should have run the power harvesting wire in a line
parallel to the power line. Even if the amount of power harvested is
small, the setup can run 24/7 to keep a battery charged so that power
can be harvested even when it is not being used.

I very much doubt that you would charge the battery at a higher rate
than is possible with a small solar panel, and the apparatus would
probably cost you more than such a solar panel (as well as being far
more unsightly).

It's not likely that it would be possible to extract great amounts of
power, perhaps enough to run a laptop or something if you only used it
for a few hours per day and left the battery on charge 24/7

The fines and possible prison sentence would be big downsides, too.

Svenne

[The Wanderer]

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?

Yes, but we are talking about a garden and one pole....

If it's a low voltage line, the spans can be anything up to 50m, if it's a
high voltage line the norm is about 70-80m depending on the conductor
material.

Now, I know what sort of lengths of overhead line at what sorts of voltages
at what sort of spacings give rise to problematic induced voltages. Do you?

[Svenne]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:33:34 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?

Yes, but we are talking about a garden and one pole....

What is of relevance is the length of power line transversing the
property and the length of the power harvesting wire running parallel
to it.

Post by The Wanderer
If it's a low voltage line, the spans can be anything up to 50m, if it's a
high voltage line the norm is about 70-80m depending on the conductor
material.

50-80m sounds nice, I bet enough power could be extracted to keep a
battery driving an inverter topped up.

Post by The Wanderer
Now, I know what sort of lengths of overhead line at what sorts of voltages
at what sort of spacings give rise to problematic induced voltages. Do you?

I know the laws of electromagnetic induction. If a wire is placed
parallel to another wire which is carrying a current, then an EMF will
be induced in that wire. Attaching a load will cause a current to flow
and electrical energy to be used. The longer the wire and the closer
it is to the line being tapped, then the greater the amount of power
which can be harvested.

Here's a guy who got a field full of flourescent tubes to extract
power from overhead power lines:

www.doobybrain.com/2008/02/03/electromagnetic-fields-cause-fluorescent-bulbs-to-glow/

http://tinyurl.com/6j2yar

Svenne

[The Wanderer]

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:33:34 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?

Yes, but we are talking about a garden and one pole....

What is of relevance is the length of power line transversing the
property and the length of the power harvesting wire running parallel
to it.

Post by The Wanderer
If it's a low voltage line, the spans can be anything up to 50m, if it's a
high voltage line the norm is about 70-80m depending on the conductor
material.

50-80m sounds nice, I bet enough power could be extracted to keep a
battery driving an inverter topped up.

Post by The Wanderer
Now, I know what sort of lengths of overhead line at what sorts of voltages
at what sort of spacings give rise to problematic induced voltages. Do you?

I know the laws of electromagnetic induction.

In other words, no.

[Svenne]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:00:02 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:33:34 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?

Yes, but we are talking about a garden and one pole....

What is of relevance is the length of power line transversing the
property and the length of the power harvesting wire running parallel
to it.

Post by The Wanderer
If it's a low voltage line, the spans can be anything up to 50m, if it's a
high voltage line the norm is about 70-80m depending on the conductor
material.

50-80m sounds nice, I bet enough power could be extracted to keep a
battery driving an inverter topped up.

Post by The Wanderer
Now, I know what sort of lengths of overhead line at what sorts of voltages
at what sort of spacings give rise to problematic induced voltages. Do you?

I know the laws of electromagnetic induction.

In other words, no.

I think you'll find that the tables and charts of spacing regulations
that your employer has given you do not suspend the laws of
electromagnetic induction.

Svenne

[The Wanderer]

Post by Svenne
I think you'll find that the tables and charts of spacing regulations
that your employer has given you do not suspend the laws of
electromagnetic induction.

Hmm, it's still a no, I see.

I was talking about the theory of electromagnetism that I studied when I
was training to be an electrical engineer. Perhaps you're confusing the
laws of physics with clearance requirements? But I'm sure you'll realise
those are set by statute, and not some abitrary decision on the part of an
employer.

Which begs the question, what relevance did your last comment have?

[Svenne]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:40:05 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
I think you'll find that the tables and charts of spacing regulations
that your employer has given you do not suspend the laws of
electromagnetic induction.

Hmm, it's still a no, I see.
I was talking about the theory of electromagnetism that I studied when I
was training to be an electrical engineer. Perhaps you're confusing the
laws of physics with clearance requirements? But I'm sure you'll realise
those are set by statute, and not some abitrary decision on the part of an
employer.
Which begs the question, what relevance did your last comment have?

That whatever the regulations concerning the distancing of poles
supporting power lines might be, the laws of electromagnetism still
apply.

Wherever there is a conductor carrying current, there is an
electromagnetic field. A second conductor placed in that field will
have an EMF induced into it.

An EMF in a conductor is a scource of electrical power if a load is
connected across it.

If someone places a conductor in the electromagnetic field of a power
company's power line, they will be able to extract electrical power.
The only question is how much. This is dependent on a few variables
like the length of the electromagnetic coupling, the distance between
the conductors and the current passing through the primary.

Svenne

[The Wanderer]

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:40:05 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
I think you'll find that the tables and charts of spacing regulations
that your employer has given you do not suspend the laws of
electromagnetic induction.

Hmm, it's still a no, I see.
I was talking about the theory of electromagnetism that I studied when I
was training to be an electrical engineer. Perhaps you're confusing the
laws of physics with clearance requirements? But I'm sure you'll realise
those are set by statute, and not some abitrary decision on the part of an
employer.
Which begs the question, what relevance did your last comment have?

That whatever the regulations concerning the distancing of poles
supporting power lines might be, the laws of electromagnetism still
apply.
Wherever there is a conductor carrying current, there is an
electromagnetic field. A second conductor placed in that field will
have an EMF induced into it.
An EMF in a conductor is a scource of electrical power if a load is
connected across it.
If someone places a conductor in the electromagnetic field of a power
company's power line, they will be able to extract electrical power.
The only question is how much. This is dependent on a few variables
like the length of the electromagnetic coupling, the distance between
the conductors and the current passing through the primary.

How interesting, that sounds very much like a paraphrase of a comment I
made elsewhere in this thread.

I'm sure you'll let us all know how you get on with your experiments to
trickle charge a battery!

[Svenne]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:56:20 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:40:05 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
I think you'll find that the tables and charts of spacing regulations
that your employer has given you do not suspend the laws of
electromagnetic induction.

Hmm, it's still a no, I see.
I was talking about the theory of electromagnetism that I studied when I
was training to be an electrical engineer. Perhaps you're confusing the
laws of physics with clearance requirements? But I'm sure you'll realise
those are set by statute, and not some abitrary decision on the part of an
employer.
Which begs the question, what relevance did your last comment have?

That whatever the regulations concerning the distancing of poles
supporting power lines might be, the laws of electromagnetism still
apply.
Wherever there is a conductor carrying current, there is an
electromagnetic field. A second conductor placed in that field will
have an EMF induced into it.
An EMF in a conductor is a scource of electrical power if a load is
connected across it.
If someone places a conductor in the electromagnetic field of a power
company's power line, they will be able to extract electrical power.
The only question is how much. This is dependent on a few variables
like the length of the electromagnetic coupling, the distance between
the conductors and the current passing through the primary.

How interesting, that sounds very much like a paraphrase of a comment I
made elsewhere in this thread.

It's a law of physics independent of you or anyone else.

And it's what I've been saying right from the beginning and something
you seemed to be arguing against.

Post by The Wanderer
I'm sure you'll let us all know how you get on with your experiments to
trickle charge a battery!

I don't think that I'll be trying it, but it is definitly possible
given the right conditions.

Svenne

[The Wanderer]

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:56:20 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
If someone places a conductor in the electromagnetic field of a power
company's power line, they will be able to extract electrical power.
The only question is how much. This is dependent on a few variables
like the length of the electromagnetic coupling, the distance between
the conductors and the current passing through the primary.

How interesting, that sounds very much like a paraphrase of a comment I
made elsewhere in this thread.

And this was my comment elsewhere in this thread. Posted at 14.40, nearly
two hours ahead of your words of wisdom.

Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.

Post by Svenne
It's a law of physics independent of you or anyone else.

They are laws I have been mentioning right from the start of this thread.

Post by Svenne
And it's what I've been saying right from the beginning and something
you seemed to be arguing against.

No, merely alluding to the impracticalities of your original suggestion.
The theory is possible.

Post by Svenne

Post by The Wanderer
I'm sure you'll let us all know how you get on with your experiments to
trickle charge a battery!

I don't think that I'll be trying it, but it is definitly possible
given the right conditions.

Many things are possible. Practically it's a non-starter. Which is what
I've been saying from the word go.

[Svenne]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:34:19 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:56:20 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
If someone places a conductor in the electromagnetic field of a power
company's power line, they will be able to extract electrical power.
The only question is how much. This is dependent on a few variables
like the length of the electromagnetic coupling, the distance between
the conductors and the current passing through the primary.

How interesting, that sounds very much like a paraphrase of a comment I
made elsewhere in this thread.

And this was my comment elsewhere in this thread. Posted at 14.40, nearly
two hours ahead of your words of wisdom.

Yes, here in a reply you posted adressed to comments by M.I.5¾, not
me:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/msg/310bcc95e53e7b78?hl=en

Post by The Wanderer
Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.

The laws of physics allow electrical energy to be extracted by
induction. The only point left to discuss is how much.

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
It's a law of physics independent of you or anyone else.

They are laws I have been mentioning right from the start of this thread.

Post by Svenne
And it's what I've been saying right from the beginning and something
you seemed to be arguing against.

No, merely alluding to the impracticalities of your original suggestion.
The theory is possible.

Post by Svenne

Post by The Wanderer
I'm sure you'll let us all know how you get on with your experiments to
trickle charge a battery!

I don't think that I'll be trying it, but it is definitly possible
given the right conditions.

Many things are possible. Practically it's a non-starter. Which is what
I've been saying from the word go.

Practically some current will be delivered to the battery from the
parallel wire. There's no way around that.

Svenne

[The Wanderer]

Post by Svenne
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:34:19 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:56:20 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
If someone places a conductor in the electromagnetic field of a power
company's power line, they will be able to extract electrical power.
The only question is how much. This is dependent on a few variables
like the length of the electromagnetic coupling, the distance between
the conductors and the current passing through the primary.

How interesting, that sounds very much like a paraphrase of a comment I
made elsewhere in this thread.

And this was my comment elsewhere in this thread. Posted at 14.40, nearly
two hours ahead of your words of wisdom.

Yes, here in a reply you posted adressed to comments by M.I.5¾, not

Of course, but the similarity is striking. Why, it's almost as though you'd
read my words and paraphrased them.

Post by Svenne

Post by The Wanderer
Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.

The laws of physics allow electrical energy to be extracted by
induction. The only point left to discuss is how much.

I've never disputed that.

<snip>

Post by Svenne
Practically some current will be delivered to the battery from the
parallel wire. There's no way around that.

But as a practical proposition to keep a battery on trickle charge, which
was your original premise, it's a non-starter.

[Svenne]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:20:50 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:34:19 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:56:20 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
If someone places a conductor in the electromagnetic field of a power
company's power line, they will be able to extract electrical power.
The only question is how much. This is dependent on a few variables
like the length of the electromagnetic coupling, the distance between
the conductors and the current passing through the primary.

How interesting, that sounds very much like a paraphrase of a comment I
made elsewhere in this thread.

And this was my comment elsewhere in this thread. Posted at 14.40, nearly
two hours ahead of your words of wisdom.

Yes, here in a reply you posted adressed to comments by M.I.5¾, not

Of course, but the similarity is striking. Why, it's almost as though you'd
read my words and paraphrased them.

The similarity must be striking since what is being stated is a law of
physics and if anyone states it correctly it must be like all other
statements that are correct, like this one I posted a few hours before
yours:

******************************************************************************

If a wire were placed running parallel to an overhead power line, near
the one of the lines carryng an outside phase so being nearest to that
phase and further away from the other two phases, then an EMF would be
induced in that wire. This is pure physics and is indisputable.

The only question which remains is how much power could be transferred
by induction to that wire. This is determined by three conditions: the
distance of the parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically
tapped into, its length and the current being carried by the power
line being tapped into.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/msg/b8f1345f35db16ba?hl=en

********************************************************************************

But I don't think you paraphrased my words, just probably missed them.

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne

Post by The Wanderer
Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.

The laws of physics allow electrical energy to be extracted by
induction. The only point left to discuss is how much.

I've never disputed that.

Nobody can reasonably dispute it because it is true.

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
Practically some current will be delivered to the battery from the
parallel wire. There's no way around that.

But as a practical proposition to keep a battery on trickle charge, which
was your original premise, it's a non-starter.

Induction in telecom cables from power lines is a known issue and can
cause problems:

https://www.ntt-review.jp/archive/ntttechnical.php?contents=ntr200708sf3.html

Wether or not it's a practical proposition to use current induced from
power lines to charge a battery depends on a lot of variables, if it's
a small battery to run a laptop or something a few hours per day, the
run was long enough and the power line passing a lot of current then I
think it could be made to work. Wether it would be worth the bother
and the risk of getting caught is another matter.

Svenne

[Cynic]

Post by Svenne
The laws of physics allow electrical energy to be extracted by
induction. The only point left to discuss is how much.

Which is a rather large point. Practical experience tells me that
even if your pick-up wire was within centimeters of the
current-carrying wire, the induced EMF will probably be miniscule.

You could multiply the effect by making a large rectangular coil of
wire, one side of which is a lot closer to a phase than the other, or
where the opposite sides of the large coil run close to each of two
different phases. I still doubt that you would get sufficient energy
to barely light a torch bulb, but you may be able to convince me by
setting some sensible values and applying the appropriate formulae - I
cannot be bothered.

You will be able to find the strength of magnetic field at a given
distance from a wire carrying X amps, and the rate of change of that
field is known (50Hz). From that, the induced EMF could be
calculated.

Post by Svenne
Practically some current will be delivered to the battery from the
parallel wire. There's no way around that.

In a simple hookup, current will only be delivered to the battery if
the induced EMF exceeds the voltage of the battery.

[Svenne]

Post by Cynic

Post by Svenne
The laws of physics allow electrical energy to be extracted by
induction. The only point left to discuss is how much.

Which is a rather large point. Practical experience tells me that
even if your pick-up wire was within centimeters of the
current-carrying wire, the induced EMF will probably be miniscule.
You could multiply the effect by making a large rectangular coil of
wire, one side of which is a lot closer to a phase than the other, or
where the opposite sides of the large coil run close to each of two
different phases. I still doubt that you would get sufficient energy
to barely light a torch bulb, but you may be able to convince me by
setting some sensible values and applying the appropriate formulae - I
cannot be bothered.

The setup you described has been tested and it gave very little power,
here's a film clip from a TV program that tested it:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/6535-mythbusters-free-energy-video.htm

I was thinking not of a coil, but of a wire as long as possible and as
close as possible running parallel to the power line. That might give
better results.

The US military are working on ways to electromagnetically harvest
current from power lines:

www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=29652

Post by Cynic
You will be able to find the strength of magnetic field at a given
distance from a wire carrying X amps, and the rate of change of that
field is known (50Hz). From that, the induced EMF could be
calculated.

It's a known issue in telecom cables.

https://www.ntt-review.jp/archive/ntttechnical.php?contents=ntr200708sf3.html

Post by Cynic

Post by Svenne
Practically some current will be delivered to the battery from the
parallel wire. There's no way around that.

In a simple hookup, current will only be delivered to the battery if
the induced EMF exceeds the voltage of the battery.

It would be alternating current and so could be put through a
transformer and rectified before feeding into the battery.

Wether or not there would be enough power to make it worthwhile is
another matter, but there would be some power and it would be free
electricity until you were caught

Svenne

[Blah]

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?
If a wire were placed running parallel to an overhead power line, near
the one of the lines carryng an outside phase so being nearest to that
phase and further away from the other two phases, then an EMF would be
induced in that wire. This is pure physics and is indisputable.
The only question which remains is how much power could be transferred
by induction to that wire. This is determined by three conditions: the
distance of the parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically
tapped into, its length and the current being carried by the power
line being tapped into.
If all three were of high enough value, quite a bit of power might be
transferred, maybe enough to have some impact on yearly electricity
bills, especially if the power being harvested were used to charge a
battery connected to an inverter thereby harvesting electricity 24/7.
Even the US military are working on ways to electromagnetically obtain
www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=29652
Svenne

You miss one major point - the voltage drop across the length of cable
you are working with governs the output voltage in your cable.
Since the volt drop is likely to be >1v , all you will generate is >1v

[Svenne]

Post by Blah

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?
If a wire were placed running parallel to an overhead power line, near
the one of the lines carryng an outside phase so being nearest to that
phase and further away from the other two phases, then an EMF would be
induced in that wire. This is pure physics and is indisputable.
The only question which remains is how much power could be transferred
by induction to that wire. This is determined by three conditions: the
distance of the parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically
tapped into, its length and the current being carried by the power
line being tapped into.
If all three were of high enough value, quite a bit of power might be
transferred, maybe enough to have some impact on yearly electricity
bills, especially if the power being harvested were used to charge a
battery connected to an inverter thereby harvesting electricity 24/7.
Even the US military are working on ways to electromagnetically obtain
www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=29652

You miss one major point - the voltage drop across the length of cable
you are working with governs the output voltage in your cable.
Since the volt drop is likely to be >1v , all you will generate is >1v

The power in Watts is = Volts x Amps, so it doesn't matter if the
voltage is low if the current is high.

There wouldn't be enough power to run a house, but there might be
enough power to keep a battery connected to inverter topped up 24/7 in
order to run an appliance.

The cost of running that appliance would be deducted from the yearly
electricity bill.

Svenne

[Blah]

Svenne wrote:
v , all you will generate is >1v

Post by Svenne
The power in Watts is = Volts x Amps, so it doesn't matter if the
voltage is low if the current is high.

Not quite. Voltage drives amperage. So if you've only got 1v and try to
run a 500w heater, you won't get 500 amps to flow!

Post by Svenne
There wouldn't be enough power to run a house, but there might be
enough power to keep a battery connected to inverter topped up 24/7 in
order to run an appliance.
The cost of running that appliance would be deducted from the yearly
electricity bill.
Svenne

[Svenne]

Post by Blah
v , all you will generate is >1v

Post by Svenne
The power in Watts is = Volts x Amps, so it doesn't matter if the
voltage is low if the current is high.

Not quite. Voltage drives amperage. So if you've only got 1v and try to
run a 500w heater, you won't get 500 amps to flow!

You forgot the third variable, resistance.

If the resistance is low enough, you can get 5000 amperes and more to
flow at 1 volt.

But anyway, there are such things as transformers, rectifiers,
batteries and inverters.

Given a heater of 500w and a supply voltage of 1 volt, if the heater
is connected to the output of an inverter and the supply voltage is
passed through a transformer increasing it to enough to charge a
battery connected to the input of the inverter via rectifiers, then
the 500w heater will work quite well.

If the heater is only used for a limited number of hours per week and
the supply is left to run 24/7 thus continually charging the battery,
then it could work quite well as a scource of free electricity.

Svenne

[fotonix]

It's really nice to see that UK.LEGAL postings are so coherent and on-
topic.

Out of nearly 60 replies, only one has been remotely useful and
accurate.

Go and do some gardening or something, for God's sake!

[Norman Wells]

Post by fotonix
It's really nice to see that UK.LEGAL postings are so coherent and on-
topic.
Out of nearly 60 replies, only one has been remotely useful and
accurate.

61 now then.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by fotonix
It's really nice to see that UK.LEGAL postings are so coherent and
on- topic.
Out of nearly 60 replies, only one has been remotely useful and
accurate.

61 now then.

Oh God, I've just made it 62.

And this makes 63.

[The Wanderer]

Post by fotonix
It's really nice to see that UK.LEGAL postings are so coherent and on-
topic.
Out of nearly 60 replies, only one has been remotely useful and
accurate.
Go and do some gardening or something, for God's sake!

Unfortunately when I see fools spouting rubbish on a subject they know
little about......

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by Svenne
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:31:49 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

Never heard of electromagnetic induction?
If a wire were placed running parallel to an overhead power line, near
the one of the lines carryng an outside phase so being nearest to that
phase and further away from the other two phases, then an EMF would be
induced in that wire. This is pure physics and is indisputable.
The only question which remains is how much power could be transferred
by induction to that wire. This is determined by three conditions: the
distance of the parallel wire from the line being electromagnetically
tapped into, its length and the current being carried by the power
line being tapped into.

Whilst I don't doubt your science. At the voltage levels encountered in
overhead distribution systems, I would be inclined to say that the
predominant coupling between the power line and and the extra wire is
electrostatic rather than electromagnetic. And if you think the
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

[The Wanderer]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:00:08 -0000, M.I.5¾ wrote:

And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....

I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.


Much better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and
remove all doubt.

Mark Twain

[Steve O]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.

Do you get to see birds getting frazzled all of the time?
Or do they instinctively know to keep off them?

[Johnno]

Post by Steve O

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.

Do you get to see birds getting frazzled all of the time?
Or do they instinctively know to keep off them?

You never see dead birds.....

[Svenne]

Post by Steve O

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.

Do you get to see birds getting frazzled all of the time?
Or do they instinctively know to keep off them?

If a bird settles on a high voltage line the bird will be at the same
electrical potential as the line, there will be no voltage drop across
the bird, no current will flow and the bird will not get frazzled.

Svenne

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by Svenne

Post by Steve O

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.

Do you get to see birds getting frazzled all of the time?
Or do they instinctively know to keep off them?

If a bird settles on a high voltage line the bird will be at the same
electrical potential as the line, there will be no voltage drop across
the bird, no current will flow and the bird will not get frazzled.

Whilst instinctively correct and the often held view, you have overlooked
the electric field surrounding the wires. In higher voltage systems the
voltage gradient is more than enough to place a significant potential
difference across the bird. Hence the bird will experience a mild electric
shock as it approaches the overhead wire system increasing in intensity the
closer it gets. The relatively conductive bird also has the effect of
concentrating the field somewhat at it point of flight increasing the
effect.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by Steve O

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.

Do you get to see birds getting frazzled all of the time?
Or do they instinctively know to keep off them?

They don't get frazzled as such, but they will be aware that something is
not right as they fly into the voltage gradient surrounding the wire that
they approach and they feel what is after all a mild electric shock. The
voltage gradient is greater if there is another phase wire between the
target wire and the bird. Obviously the effect is greater with higher
voltage circuits than lower ones.

[The Wanderer]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by Steve O

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.

Do you get to see birds getting frazzled all of the time?
Or do they instinctively know to keep off them?

They don't get frazzled as such, but they will be aware that something is
not right as they fly into the voltage gradient surrounding the wire that
they approach and they feel what is after all a mild electric shock. The
voltage gradient is greater if there is another phase wire between the
target wire and the bird. Obviously the effect is greater with higher
voltage circuits than lower ones.

Do you have any idea of the typical voltage gradient per foot in free air?

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by Steve O

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.

Do you get to see birds getting frazzled all of the time?
Or do they instinctively know to keep off them?

They don't get frazzled as such, but they will be aware that something is
not right as they fly into the voltage gradient surrounding the wire that
they approach and they feel what is after all a mild electric shock. The
voltage gradient is greater if there is another phase wire between the
target wire and the bird. Obviously the effect is greater with higher
voltage circuits than lower ones.

Do you have any idea of the typical voltage gradient per foot in free air?

Yes. Electrostatic field plotting (and indeed magnetic and current field
plotting) was something I studied in electrical engineering. The
construction of such in the current application is significantly complicated
by the fact that it is a three phase system (which means you have to plot it
at various points on the cycle and then average it all out - quite
difficult). But even if you discount the 3rd phase and consider 2 parallel
wires, the electric field voltage gradient isn't constant between the wires.
It is at its lowest midway between the wires and rises approaching a square
law as you get nearer to one of the conductors. In the close vicinity of a
conductor the voltage gradient is more or less independent of the conductor
spacing.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:58:58 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer
Do you have any idea of the typical voltage gradient per foot in free air?

On the very high voltage pylons, the voltage gradient is plenty
sufficient to light a flourescent tube at ground level (I've done it)
- so at least several hundred volts over the length of the tube.

Incidentally, on a dry day the voltage gradient in normal atmosphere
is a over a thousand volts per meter of height. A very well
insulated metal mass at roof height is capable of charging up and
giving a lethal shock to a grounded person who touches it.

[The Wanderer]

Post by Cynic
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:58:58 +0000, The Wanderer

Post by The Wanderer
Do you have any idea of the typical voltage gradient per foot in free air?

On the very high voltage pylons, the voltage gradient is plenty
sufficient to light a flourescent tube at ground level (I've done it)
- so at least several hundred volts over the length of the tube.
Incidentally, on a dry day the voltage gradient in normal atmosphere
is a over a thousand volts per meter of height. A very well
insulated metal mass at roof height is capable of charging up and
giving a lethal shock to a grounded person who touches it.

I have memories on a very dull and misty day parking up under a 275kv line
and getting a noticeable tingle getting out of the car. Sort of makes sure
you avoid doing it again.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.
Much better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and
remove all doubt.

But what is the voltage? Do you know? Thought not.

[The Wanderer]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.
Much better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and
remove all doubt.

But what is the voltage? Do you know? Thought not.

Out the back of my place? 11kv. 3 phase. Built to BS1320, light
construction. Main feed into the village, open point between two porimary
substations also in the village.

You are a fool.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.
Much better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and
remove all doubt.

But what is the voltage? Do you know? Thought not.

Out the back of my place? 11kv. 3 phase. Built to BS1320, light
construction. Main feed into the village, open point between two porimary
substations also in the village.

Low voltage then. I am discussing high voltage systems.

Post by The Wanderer
You are a fool.

Are you not able to post without having to resort to insults to boost your
tenuous position?

You are heading for a one way ticket to my kill file.

[The Wanderer]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
And if you think the

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

You really have not the slightest idea.....
I see them on a daily basis out the back of my place, and the circuit is
alive.
Much better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and
remove all doubt.

But what is the voltage? Do you know? Thought not.

Out the back of my place? 11kv. 3 phase. Built to BS1320, light
construction. Main feed into the village, open point between two porimary
substations also in the village.

Low voltage then. I am discussing high voltage systems.

Low voltage? 11kv? Do you really mean ehv systems? Or just what *do* you
mean? Perhaps it would be better if you told us.

[Blah]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
Whilst I don't doubt your science. At the voltage levels encountered in
overhead distribution systems, I would be inclined to say that the
predominant coupling between the power line and and the extra wire is
electrostatic rather than electromagnetic. And if you think the
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you never
see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you do see
them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

Course you do! They can sit happily on 132kv without a worry, as could
you. Problems only arise if two parts of body touch adjacent, but
differing voltages

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by Blah

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
Whilst I don't doubt your science. At the voltage levels encountered in
overhead distribution systems, I would be inclined to say that the
predominant coupling between the power line and and the extra wire is
electrostatic rather than electromagnetic. And if you think the
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you
never see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you
do see them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

Course you do! They can sit happily on 132kv without a worry, as could
you. Problems only arise if two parts of body touch adjacent, but
differing voltages

Not the case. The electric field sees to that (discussed elsewhere). Even
wiremen working on live overhead systems have to work inside a Faraday cage
to avoid the voltage gradient of the electrostatic field.

[The Wanderer]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by Blah

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
Whilst I don't doubt your science. At the voltage levels encountered in
overhead distribution systems, I would be inclined to say that the
predominant coupling between the power line and and the extra wire is
electrostatic rather than electromagnetic. And if you think the
electrostatic field is insignificant, you might like to ask: why you
never see birds perched on live high voltage overhead power wires (If you
do see them perched on wires, it's because the wires aren't live).

Course you do! They can sit happily on 132kv without a worry, as could
you. Problems only arise if two parts of body touch adjacent, but
differing voltages

Not the case. The electric field sees to that (discussed elsewhere). Even
wiremen working on live overhead systems have to work inside a Faraday cage

No they don't, that's only for bare-hands working. What about hot-stick
working?

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
to avoid the voltage gradient of the electrostatic field.

You demonstrate admirably that a little knowledge is dangerous.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

How do you work that out? What we don't know is the voltage carried by the
overhead wire, but unless it is the local 415/240 volt distribution to the
houses, it will be at at least 3300 volts (though 3300 volt systems are
becoming rare). It is unlikely to be the local 415/240 volts because the OP
refers to wires (plural). All the overhead 415/240 distribution systems
have been replaced with a single 4 core cables. A cable rigged alongside
even a 3300 volt distribution will have a significant induced voltage

[The Wanderer]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

How do you work that out? What we don't know is the voltage carried by the
overhead wire, but unless it is the local 415/240 volt distribution to the
houses, it will be at at least 3300 volts (though 3300 volt systems are
becoming rare). It is unlikely to be the local 415/240 volts because the OP
refers to wires (plural). All the overhead 415/240 distribution systems
have been replaced with a single 4 core cables.

Bullshit. Try opening your eyes when you're driving around the countryside.
There are *many* instances of 4/5 wire lv distribution systems. I drive
past some on a daily basis.

A cable rigged alongside

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
even a 3300 volt distribution will have a significant induced voltage

Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.

Oh, and FWIW, 3.3kv has been an obsolescent standard for several decades.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

How do you work that out? What we don't know is the voltage carried by the
overhead wire, but unless it is the local 415/240 volt distribution to the
houses, it will be at at least 3300 volts (though 3300 volt systems are
becoming rare). It is unlikely to be the local 415/240 volts because the OP
refers to wires (plural). All the overhead 415/240 distribution systems
have been replaced with a single 4 core cables.

Bullshit. Try opening your eyes when you're driving around the
countryside.
There are *many* instances of 4/5 wire lv distribution systems. I drive
past some on a daily basis.

The fact that you drive past some doesn't make them universal. I said
"unlikely to be". I haven't seen a separate cabled 415/240 system for
nearly a decade but I don't doubt that some legacy installations still
exist.

Post by The Wanderer
A cable rigged alongside

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
even a 3300 volt distribution will have a significant induced voltage

Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.
Oh, and FWIW, 3.3kv has been an obsolescent standard for several decades.

'Obsolescent' doesn't mean 'doesn't exist' (in fact if they no longer
existed then they would be *obsolete*). There are still quite a few legacy
3300 volt systems around particularly in areas that still have 430/250 volt
systems. There was even a 2200 volt system not far from me that supplied an
oddball 6 phase 400/230 volt distribution where the actual supply to
individual houses was 115-0-115 volts, but this was upgraded around 5 years
ago. It was originally an experimental system that was supposed to be
safer. AFAIK it was unique to the area.

[The Wanderer]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

How do you work that out? What we don't know is the voltage carried by the
overhead wire, but unless it is the local 415/240 volt distribution to the
houses, it will be at at least 3300 volts (though 3300 volt systems are
becoming rare). It is unlikely to be the local 415/240 volts because the OP
refers to wires (plural). All the overhead 415/240 distribution systems
have been replaced with a single 4 core cables.

Bullshit. Try opening your eyes when you're driving around the countryside.
There are *many* instances of 4/5 wire lv distribution systems. I drive
past some on a daily basis.

The fact that you drive past some doesn't make them universal. I said
"unlikely to be". I haven't seen a separate cabled 415/240 system for
nearly a decade but I don't doubt that some legacy installations still
exist.

I could drive to just about any part of the UK and find numerous examples
of 4 wire lv systems as distinct from abc. I would hazard a guess (better
informed than any guesses you might make) that something like 40% of the
total low voltage system has been converted to abc.

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer
A cable rigged alongside

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
even a 3300 volt distribution will have a significant induced voltage

Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.
Oh, and FWIW, 3.3kv has been an obsolescent standard for several decades.

'Obsolescent' doesn't mean 'doesn't exist' (in fact if they no longer
existed then they would be *obsolete*).

Thank you. I'm well aware of the distinction which is why I used the word.
That you had need to point out that distinction only shows you for the fool
you are.

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
There are still quite a few legacy
3300 volt systems around particularly in areas that still have 430/250 volt
systems.

Are there? How can you substantiate that claim?

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
There was even a 2200 volt system not far from me

So? I'm aware of 1.75kv, 2kv, 2.2kv, 2.75kv, 3kv, 3.3kv, 6.6kv to name but
a few. They are all obsolescent, some are by now obsolete, and accounted
for less than 1% of the total hv distribution network in the REC I used to
work for as far back as the 1970s/1980s. Oh, and before you try to point
out that was only one REC, they all produce functional statistics that are
aggregated and published. I've regularly used such books when I was
working. Have you?

The norm is 11kv for distribution, 22kv, 33kv, 66kv and 132kv for primary
distribution, and 275kv and 400kv for transmission.

Your use of an obsolescent voltage for illustration shows you have precious
little understanding of the electricity supply industry within the UK.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

How do you work that out? What we don't know is the voltage carried by the
overhead wire, but unless it is the local 415/240 volt distribution to the
houses, it will be at at least 3300 volts (though 3300 volt systems are
becoming rare). It is unlikely to be the local 415/240 volts because
the
OP
refers to wires (plural). All the overhead 415/240 distribution systems
have been replaced with a single 4 core cables.

Bullshit. Try opening your eyes when you're driving around the countryside.
There are *many* instances of 4/5 wire lv distribution systems. I drive
past some on a daily basis.

The fact that you drive past some doesn't make them universal. I said
"unlikely to be". I haven't seen a separate cabled 415/240 system for
nearly a decade but I don't doubt that some legacy installations still
exist.

I could drive to just about any part of the UK and find numerous examples
of 4 wire lv systems as distinct from abc. I would hazard a guess (better
informed than any guesses you might make) that something like 40% of the
total low voltage system has been converted to abc.

There are none left around here, so your statement is plain wrong.

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer
A cable rigged alongside

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
even a 3300 volt distribution will have a significant induced voltage

Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.
Oh, and FWIW, 3.3kv has been an obsolescent standard for several decades.

'Obsolescent' doesn't mean 'doesn't exist' (in fact if they no longer
existed then they would be *obsolete*).

Thank you. I'm well aware of the distinction which is why I used the word.
That you had need to point out that distinction only shows you for the fool
you are.

I've had enough of you fucking insulting tone so into the kill file you go.

[Norman Wells]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
I've had enough of you fucking insulting tone so into the kill file you go.

Oi, I'm in there and it's getting crowded! Couldn't you have asked first?

Anyway, I didn't hear him insulting Tone, whoever he is.

[The Wanderer]

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

It would seem you know very little about electrical engineering.....

How do you work that out? What we don't know is the voltage carried by the
overhead wire, but unless it is the local 415/240 volt distribution to the
houses, it will be at at least 3300 volts (though 3300 volt systems are
becoming rare). It is unlikely to be the local 415/240 volts because
the
OP
refers to wires (plural). All the overhead 415/240 distribution systems
have been replaced with a single 4 core cables.

Bullshit. Try opening your eyes when you're driving around the countryside.
There are *many* instances of 4/5 wire lv distribution systems. I drive
past some on a daily basis.

The fact that you drive past some doesn't make them universal. I said
"unlikely to be". I haven't seen a separate cabled 415/240 system for
nearly a decade but I don't doubt that some legacy installations still
exist.

I could drive to just about any part of the UK and find numerous examples
of 4 wire lv systems as distinct from abc. I would hazard a guess (better
informed than any guesses you might make) that something like 40% of the
total low voltage system has been converted to abc.

There are none left around here, so your statement is plain wrong.

Rubbish, it only means the circuits in your vicinity have all been changed
for abc. To claim my statement is wrong displays a clear error of logic
that has regard for what may be the case elsewhere in the country.

Your words:- All the overhead 415/240 distribution systems have been
replaced with a single 4 core cables.

You do not qualify that statement in any way, when a wander around any part
of the country will prove you wrong.

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer

Post by M.I.5Ÿ

Post by The Wanderer
A cable rigged alongside

Post by M.I.5Ÿ
even a 3300 volt distribution will have a significant induced voltage

Will it? Surely that depends on several factors, such as the strength of
the electromagnetic field in the primary circuit, the physical separation
of the primary and secondary circuits and the length of common coupling. I
suggest you take a look at Faraday's Laws, and stop trying to bullshit your
way on a subject that you don't know too much about.
Oh, and FWIW, 3.3kv has been an obsolescent standard for several decades.

'Obsolescent' doesn't mean 'doesn't exist' (in fact if they no longer
existed then they would be *obsolete*).

Thank you. I'm well aware of the distinction which is why I used the word.
That you had need to point out that distinction only shows you for the fool
you are.

I've had enough of you fucking insulting tone so into the kill file you go.

Well it saves you having to admit you've been talking rubbish.

[M.I.5Ÿ]

Post by Svenne
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:03:30 -0800 (PST), fotonix

Post by fotonix
Two negotiators on this have advised me today that the only way to get
the proper compensation for loss of value to my property because of
the pole is to have it removed. To me, that makes perfect sense.

Why not put up your own poles and install a wire parallel and close
to, but not touching, the power companies line.
You would then have free source of electricity due to induction.

That has already been established in court as theft of power. It doesn't
have to be directly connected, just deliberately designed to divert the
energy.

[Norman Wells]

Post by fotonix
The main issue is whether the network needs permission now to have
their wires cross overhead my garden. There is a wayleave that I am
refusing to agree to (it is transferable, so I do not have to agree to
it), which covers 'apparatus for the transmission of electricity'.

Are you sure it means what you think, ie that you don't have to agree to it?
That would be an extraordinary way round that always puts the power company
at risk if there is new ownership of the property. I would have thought
that it's the power company that can transfer the wayleave that they have at
the moment to any successor of theirs so as to retain the right to have
cables overhead the property, as long as they continue to pay the current
occupier of the property.

[fotonix]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by fotonix
The main issue is whether the network needs permission now to have
their wires cross overhead my garden.  There is a wayleave that I am
refusing to agree to (it is transferable, so I do not have to agree to
it), which covers 'apparatus for the transmission of electricity'.

Are you sure it means what you think, ie that you don't have to agree to it?
That would be an extraordinary way round that always puts the power company
at risk if there is new ownership of the property.  I would have thought
that it's the power company that can transfer the wayleave that they have at
the moment to any successor of theirs so as to retain the right to have
cables overhead the property, as long as they continue to pay the current
occupier of the property.

Yes, I am absolutely sure. Two professional negotiators and the
company themselves confirm.

J.

[The Wanderer]

Post by fotonix

Post by Norman Wells

Post by fotonix
The main issue is whether the network needs permission now to have
their wires cross overhead my garden.  There is a wayleave that I am
refusing to agree to (it is transferable, so I do not have to agree to
it), which covers 'apparatus for the transmission of electricity'.

Are you sure it means what you think, ie that you don't have to agree to it?
That would be an extraordinary way round that always puts the power company
at risk if there is new ownership of the property.  I would have thought
that it's the power company that can transfer the wayleave that they have at
the moment to any successor of theirs so as to retain the right to have
cables overhead the property, as long as they continue to pay the current
occupier of the property.

Yes, I am absolutely sure. Two professional negotiators and the
company themselves confirm.

Professional negotiators in which field? They seem to know little about
overhead lines and the likely impact of property prices.

Follow up to my earlier post, this link points to the relevant sections of
the Electricity Act. Look at clauses 6, 7, 8 wayleaves, about half way down
the page. It's pretty heavy going, but you'll see the dice is loaded in
their fsvour.

http://spedr.com/2w16y

[The Wanderer]

Post by fotonix
HNY to all!
I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.
Is permission required for electricity lines to cross overhead one's
property? They currently cross over my garden, which limits what
trees and so on I can grow there.
All constructive replies welcomed!

Long answer coming up. Oh, and it's definitive. I know a lot about
wayleaves!

You've mentioned in another reply that a wayleave is extant. Wayleaves are
determinable (cancellable) if either side gives the requisite notice.
That's normally 12 months. The supply company almost certainly will do
nothing until that 12 months is up if you give notice, and then they'll
drag their feet about any alterations.

Is there another location in the garden that you can offer them for a pole,
to move at their expense? You may get a speedier and more cooperative
result if you can offer them an alternative position, besides which you are
also strengthening your own position.

If you dig your heels in and tell them to get rid of the pole, you're not
having it anywhere on your land, then they can and almost certainly will
apply for a 'necessary' wayleave. These used to be called compulsory
wayleaves until the Electricity Act of 1989 was enacted as part of the
industry privatisation.

Compulsory wayleaves always used to be quite difficult to obtain, but the
act places much less onus on the supply company to come to a mutually
satisfactory arrangement with the landowner. In essence, they now merely
have to demonstrate to the appropriate Secretary of State that they need to
keep the equipment in it's present location to maintain supplies to
customers.

If they go down that line, rather than moving the pole to a mutually
acceptable location at their expense, you're as good as f*cked. If you
insist on the pole being moved after a necessary wayleave has been granted,
they'll try to charge you full cost for moving the line. That could run to
several thousands!

If you can offer them an alternative position for the pole and they choose
not to do anything about it, you will have a good case for objecting if
they apply for a necessary wayleave. If you don't adopt a cooperative
attitude, they will only have to show that they were dealing with an
uncooperative landowner.

This may not have been what you wanted to hear, but I'd really try to
resolve the issue as amicably as possible. Don't get too stroppy with them,
coz the deck is loaded in their favour!

[f***@googlemail.com]

Post by fotonix
HNY to all!
I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.
Is permission required for electricity lines to cross overhead one's
property?  They currently cross over my garden, which limits what
trees and so on I can grow there.
All constructive replies welcomed!
J.

You can rip the wires down if they cross your land without your
permission, and if the pole is on your land dig it up and send it back
to the company COD, dont even bother mediating...end of, that will
bring then running pretty damned fast and simply tell them when they
arrive your fed up of waiting to get aproper outcome so until they are
prepapred to settle on your terms, they fuck off.

Happens alot especially when new telephone sysytems have to be rolled
out, these companies know the ropes, just hit them hard cos they will
have to settle with you on your terms.

[Johnno]

Post by f***@googlemail.com

Post by fotonix
HNY to all!
I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.
Is permission required for electricity lines to cross overhead one's
property? They currently cross over my garden, which limits what
trees and so on I can grow there.
All constructive replies welcomed!
J.

You can rip the wires down if they cross your land without your
permission, and if the pole is on your land dig it up and send it back
to the company COD, dont even bother mediating...end of, that will
bring then running pretty damned fast and simply tell them when they
arrive your fed up of waiting to get aproper outcome so until they are
prepapred to settle on your terms, they fuck off.
Happens alot especially when new telephone sysytems have to be rolled
out, these companies know the ropes, just hit them hard cos they will
have to settle with you on your terms.

And when you do that, you will be sent to Australia as a convict... like
err um - oh the previous poster!

[Svenne]

Post by f***@googlemail.com
You can rip the wires down if they cross your land without your
permission,

A bit of a dangerous thing to do with power lines.

Svenne

[RobertL]

Post by fotonix
HNY to all!
I'm just now arranging for Scottish Power Networks to remove a pole
they have in my garden, and for which they are not prepared to pay an
adequate compensation (it doesn't supply my property), despite lengthy
discussions that could have avoided the removal costs.

Do you mean the pole was not there when you bought the house?
Robert