Communication Towers
Tuesday, 17th May 2005 by Alex Turnbull
Very close to each other near Walnut Grove CA, are three utterly enormous communication towers. Firstly is the Channel 40 Tower which stands at 608.7 metres, then just a little South is the Hearst-Argyle Tower which stands at 609.6 metres (there's actually 17 communication towers in the US at exactly 609.6 metres, presumably they're all just the same kind?).
Finally we have the KXTV/KOVR Tower, an absolute behemoth of communications towers. Standing at 624.5 m the structure is taller than the CN Tower, and officially the 3rd largest structure in existence (the first two aren't covered by hi-res images on Google yet). There's loads more of these towers across the US, but they all start to look kind of the same after a while... 😉
Thanks to Josh Kaplan.
About the author
Alex has decided that his title will be Senior Vice President of Stuff.
609.6 meters is “2000 feet”. I imagine people say “we have a 2000 foot tower”, really meaning somewhere between 1900 and 2100 feet. But then some idiot, not understanding the approximation, translates that to 609.6 meters “precisely” :). Probably would have been better to just say “600 meters”.
I think you are the idiot 😛 Look in the Wikipedia link, for most of the towers there’s a link the FCC site… with the real height of each tower, in METER !!! 🙂
Butch, I think it would be fair to say that Mr Schwartz definitely isn’t an idiot.
Also, I tend to agree that it does seem rather suspicious that 609.6 meters is exactly 2000 feet. On the other hand, I would have expected Wikipedia’s figures relating to ‘the tallest things’ to be reliable (what the Internet lacks in spelling, it more than makes up for in pedantry) 😉
Why is it suspicious? If I need a 2000′ tower why would I build one 1968’6″ high… 600m vs 609.6m… People like even numbers… There is a lot of engineering and regulation involved, I’m sure they know exactly the height of each of them… My guess is than there a company making these towers and they have a 2000′ model than a lot of ppl seem to want… If you look at the FCC site you’ll see some at 609.7m or 609.5m, that +/- ~4″… Probably because of the type of terrain or the equipment on top of the tower. Why put a even number when you know the real one, just because it look better? 😉 Anyway, I can be wrong 🙂
There seems to be a fourth one just slightly to the east.
My question is, what’s so special about this exact spot that makes everyone want to prop up their own 2000-foot towers? Elevation, soil, weather? (Or something out of American Gods?)
Wow. That really was an extensive discussion about the height of random towers that we all pass by on the road without a second thought.
On a lighter note, here’s a very small and unimpressive golf course to the west of the Hearst-Argyle Tower.
View Placemark
There are many factors that go in to determining a towers height – from terrain to frequency to type of antenna. However, there is a much simpler explanation for the number of towers at 2000 feet – additional government approval is required from both the FCC and FAA. From the FCC:
Although there is no absolute height limit for antenna towers, both agencies have established a rebuttable presumption against structures over 2,000 feet above ground level. The FCC has a policy that applications filed with the FCC for antenna towers higher than 2,000 feet above ground will be presumed to be inconsistent with the public interest and the applicant will have a burden of overcoming that strong presumption. The applicant must accompany its application with a detailed showing directed to meeting this burden. Only in the exceptional case, where the Commission concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that there are public interest reasons requiring a tower higher than 2,000 feet above ground, and after the parties have complied with applicable FAA procedures, and full Commission coordination with FAA on the question of menace to air navigation, will a grant be made (47 CFR § 1.61 Note).
Westacular,
There is nothing special about this bit of earth except it’s location in relation to surrounding cities. The central valley of California stretches over 400 miles north-south and up to 60 miles across. There are virtually no tall mountains near the center of the valley. The location where these towers are located is at or near sea level where the valleys water resources become the Sacramento River delta and empties west into the San Francisco (San Pablo) bay. Essentially, the whole valley slopes toward these towers providing excellent coverage of surrounding areas. (Think seating in a movie theatre where the towers are the screens.) The central valley is home to over 5.5 million people and is also one of the fastest areas in the California and the west. Once you take all this into account, the best way to serve the broadcasting needs of the area is to place a transmitter up as high as possible in the lowest point of the area, hence the tower. Since FM radio, UHF/VHF/HDTV television and all other signals above about 1Mhz are inherently dependant on line of site, it becomes a evident that a large tower constructed in this location would serve the maximum number of people.
Here’s some more info on the central valley: http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/nov/central_valley/ It truly is a natural wonder of the world providing about 1/4 of the US with food. It’s also been said that virtually anything can grow within the valley, from kiwi to pineapple and rice paddies to olives groves.
Although impressive, it is still not as impressive as early 1800’s Spanish accounts of the entire valley being flooded with seasonal run-off creating a lake a few to several feet deep over an area of 10,000+ square miles. During this season it was said that bird migrations could number so large that the sky could become as dark as night completely blocking out visibility of the sun… sometimes for hours.
Another impressive tower is the disused KSBW tower west of Morgan Hill, CA. While only 1572 feet tall it sits on a ridge that is nearly 2500 feet in elevation. View Placemark An interesting account of a climb to the top (this one doesn’t have the dumb waiter like elevators that the Walnut Grove towers above have) can be found here: http://www.oldradio.com/archives/warstories/1572feet.htm
This tower was erected to bring it’s height near to height of Loma Prieta (where many local stations transmit from) so it’s signal could cover San Jose and the Bay Area while still keeping the station legal since it’s studios are located in Salinas over 35 miles away. Loma Prieta would also be an obstruction to parts of the Bay Area if the tower was lower.
Wordy but hope it’s informative.
Here’s an antenna farm in Stafford, TX (SW of Houston). I don’t know the height of the structures, but they are easily visible from over 20 miles away.
View Placemark
Also, note the direction of the shadows of the “twin” towers in the upper-right, relative to the rest.
You guys should reasearch what you say … the worlds tallest tower is located near my home town and is 2063 feet, which by the way, is the height that no tower can pass.
see for yourself,
http://www.answers.com/topic/kvly-tv-mast
FYI – a tower a couple of miles away and near the same size has fallen twice. Once when hit by a plane and once it was taken down by an ice storm.