Re: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:01:31 -0400, mike weber <fairportfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:59:52 -0500, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
><daveloewe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>On 18 Apr 2008 21:35:51 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>If an antenna has to be on a tall tower anyway, there's no great
>>>benefit to placing the tall tower on top of ten story building
>>>rather than directly on the ground.  Most big cities, unlike DC,
>>>have skyscrapers.
>>
>>Any, yet, most cities do not place their TV transmitters there.
>
>New York, Chicago, 

I've already mentioned those two...

>Toronto, Moscow (although, in that case, the
>skyscraper *is* the antenna) and doubtless others that come to mind.  

....and we were quite specifically talking about the US. 

<ft6i76$7js$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  

"
> Why the suburbs?  Are TV transmitters in the US in inner cities?

Generally, yes.  Each major city has its own set of TV stations.  If
their transmitter were in, say, the western suburbs, reception would
be poor in the eastern suburbs.  Also, cities tend to have taller
buildings than suburbs, and the transmitting antenna should be on
top of as tall a building as is available."

This is yet another reason *I* have a light editorial hand.

>Granted this is not "most", but it was the list that came immediately
>to mind.  In other cases, such as, say the WSB  tower in Atlanta
>(which is 157 meters taller than the Peachtree Plaza), free-standing
>antennas may very well *be* some of the taller structures in the city.

As you can see, that isn't what Lynch was referring to.
-- 
"We all grew up on Mickey Mouse and hula-hoops
 Then we all bought BMW's and brand new pickup trucks
 And we watched John Kennedy die one afternoon
 Kids of the baby boom."
   - David Bellamy