If you park a car under it the car becomes plates of a multi plate capacitor. That assumes ground return. I grew up around the big DC line that runs from The Dalles, Oregon to Sylmar, California. Originally it was operated ground return, 11 ohms total loop resistance. Had big mercury vapor ignitron tubes at each end to rectify and invert. It was a fun place to visit. Huge federal building, had tourist areas but nobody was ever there. It was air conditioned and my car and my home were not. The hydroelectric dams were also good to kill an afternoon as a teenager on a hot summer day. I had almost total free run of them.
From: Bill Prince Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I would think that DC would pose much less of an issue than AC. No stray expanding/collapsing magnetic fields. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 2/28/2015 1:19 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I was concerned because the 200 ft towers would potentially go through the one part of my service area that is currently free of both wind farms and high voltage transmission lines. But the current route takes it about a mile north of US Hwy 52 which puts it at the south end of my coverage, it may cause some problems for me, but not as bad as some of the originally proposed routes. http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/preferred-and-alternative-routes-in-illinois They don’t seem decided yet on what type of tower they will use, a lattice tower is more likely to block a microwave path than a monopole: http://www.rockislandcleanline.com/site/page/transmission-line-structures From: Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link They have been doing this for years, so maybe it has changed. *shrugs* ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Bill Prince" mailto:[email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:41:30 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link When I looked at their web site, a couple different voltages were mentioned. The first reference was to ~~ 350,000 volts, and the second one was 600,000 volts. You may be right about 1,000,000 volts, as that would really reduce the current. Would make those thyristors even more impressive. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 2/28/2015 12:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I think they're running 1M vDC. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Prince" mailto:[email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:33:14 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link Interesting how we've come full circle on power transmission. Thomas Edison's original "big distribution" project failed because it was essentially a DC transmission project. Back then, they were only able to do DC transmission a couple of miles. The advantages of AC won out. Now that we understand the issues better, DC is coming back. I would really like to see the thyristors that convert between AC and DC with an operating voltage of 600,000 volts. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 2/28/2015 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the farmland. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359 From: Chuck McCown Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very effective tool in Utah. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put an end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent domain case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the argument that fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land, in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am not against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away. On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is almost impossible to lose. I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges I have been before did not even want to step into that argument. Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know that has happened all over the country. From: Trevor Bough Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent domain. It leaves it to the states to define what "public use" is. And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove the taking is definitely needed for public use. On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many years ago. > > From: Trevor Bough > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link > > > As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line, they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations. Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now). > > On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Tangent... >> >> >> I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "Trevor Bough" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link >> >> Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent domain, so it is definitely not a, "This guy is being difficult, we'll show him." fix-all. http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/ Looks like it wasn't always the case here though. >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket. >>> >>> From: Trevor Bough >>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link >>> >>> >>> It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be for "public use", which a utility can qualify as, but even after going to court for six months or more to prove that this is necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic "Easy Button". >>> >>> On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> If you need to cross property with your pole line or underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you have to compensate them for what you have taken. >>>> >>>> That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very expensive ROW... >>>> >>>> What you are talking about below is the establishment of a prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property. Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order, cut down that pole. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link >>>> >>>> What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My "knowledge" on that >>>> topic is all hearsay. >>>> >>>> I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an empty lot >>>> that he owned across the street from his house. He watched them set the >>>> pole and then after the workers left he went out with a chainsaw and cut >>>> it down because they never asked him if they could put the pole there >>>> (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put the pole >>>> there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his property >>>> because of eminent domain. >>>> >>>>> You may even have the right of eminent domain now. >>>> >>>> >> >>
