3 ms·
What's the limit on structures of this type? It seems unlikely that the radio towers we have now are the best we can do; it sounds like they just stopped makin
by elihu 12y ago
What's the limit on structures of this type? It seems unlikely that the radio towers we have now are the best we can do; it sounds like they just stopped making them bigger because there wasn't anyone that wanted a bigger one badly enough to justify the cost.
- quesera 12y agoLegally (in the U.S.), the FAA restricts the height of towers to about 2000', with rare variances granted. Technically, we don't need supergiant towers, now even less than ever before. High frequency broadcasters (TV) need line of sight to their customers, but -- economically -- TV transmission also has huge energy costs (wide bandwidth), and you're fighting the inverse square law the whole time. So in the low-populated areas where you might reach more people at the margins, it just doesn't make economic sense. In denser markets, the next city will be better served by a local station. Also economically, the general rule of thumb is that the cost of a tower increases as the square of its height. But I think you were asking about the physical limit. These masts are typically made of galvanized steel tubes. Pipe OD size and wall thickness (and therefore compressive strength) will vary, but that is the ultimate limiting parameter. The galvanized steel guy lines are in tension, but it's easy to add more of these as height and footprint increase.
- clarky07 12y agoJust the first part is key. The FAA won't let you. The article mentions that there are many towers close to the 2000 limit placed by the FAA.
- elihu 12y agoOther countries besides the US could build one, if they had a compelling use case. I was mostly just wondering what the physical limits are on this kind of thing.