Frog-Grinding Towers

Michael A. Mueller

Contents

• Introduction
• The Input to Frog-Grinding Towers
• The Output of Frog-Grinding Towers
• Conclusion
• Figures
• References

INTRODUCTION

Towers shorter than 400 feet don't grind any frogs. Therefore, by definition, a frog-grinding tower must be at least 400 feet tall. (this does not prevent shorter towers from being somehow involved, though; this point will be discussed later.) No one has ever seen a tower shorter than 400 feet grinding any frogs. (In fact, you usually can't see any tower grinding frogs, unless you can get real close and know what you're looking for.) This led investigators to calculate that it is in fact mathematically impossible for a short tower to grind frogs. That the cutoff is exactly 400' has more to do with this height's relation to the length of sections from which towers are made than anything else¹.

It has been determined that the percentage of towers only 6 inches shorter than 400' that grind frogs is already down to 25%. This gives the low-height cutoff a rolloff of 36 dBf per foot. (see fig. 1) Note that this applies only to single guyed or freestanding frog-grinding towers, not ones with a huge cross-beam or mythical double towers, for example. The reason for this is that the true nature of the frog-grinding structure is largely dependent on its impressivity factor i. Standard towers are given an i of one, since one times 400' is still 400'. Double towers (see fig. 2) have an i value of .6; it need be only 240' to be frog-grinding, while skyscrapers have an i value of 1.5 and need to be 600'. Towers with a huge cross-beam at the top have an i value of .5, as do small ham radio towers.

Not only this, but also that the taller the tower the more frogs it grinds. Indeed, the number of frogs ground by a frog-grinding tower is directly proportional to the square of its height. The formula for this is

	Frogs ground per hour = æ times height in feet squared
	where æ is an as-yet-undetermined proportionality constant.

We kind of think that æ might probably be between .00015 and .0004, but it's hard to be for sure because it is so difficult to view the output of a frog-grinding tower.

Towers that grind a lot of frogs are very tall, and you would have to climb most of the way up to see the output. This is because the ground-up frog parts are ejected from the top, not merely dropped down. How is this known? The only way we know this is through the use of a device known as a frog-grinding camera. This type of camera was, in fact, known years before its use in the discovery of the existence of frog-grinding towers. They closely resemble video cameras, but grind frogs. (The output of a frog-grinding camera can be used for whatever you want, since output is through a standard RCA connector or optional XLR and BNC connectors.) These cameras are very rare, and even I only have one of them. It was given to me by Chris Wilcox, and I have no idea where he got it. A frog-grinding camera can easily "photograph" the output of a frog-grinding tower. (see fig. 3) It looks like black specks ejected from the top. (It has been shown that the output is not continuous, but occurs in bursts that average out to the above formula, and may last for seconds or minutes.) Clearly, the output is not even evenly distributed, for reasons we don't yet understand, but we'll try to discuss it later anyway. Because an ordinary camera or telescope cannot detect the output of frog-grinding towers, the nature of this output is still kind of a mystery.

THE INPUT OF FROG-GRINDING TOWERS

The input of frog-grinding towers is not well understood, but we think it is by the base.

back to top

THE OUTPUT OF FROG-GRINDING TOWERS

Very tall towers grind a great many more frogs than ones closer to 400 feet in height. Therefore, they are easier to study, and will be the basis for the following discussion. Featured will be two groups of towers which have members between 1,000 feet and 1,800 feet tall. (By convention, a tower 1000' or taller is called "a true frog-grinder".) One of these groups is south of San Antonio, Texas, and the other is south of Houston, Texas. (see fig. 4) (These cities are 200 miles apart.) It is now known that these groups communicate directly with each other, not only in radio waves, but also in frogs. Apparently, frog-grinding towers not only grind up and eject ground-up frogs, but also engage in the unlikely practice of shooting as-yet-unground frogs between each other. They catch the frogs shot to them, and then grind them up. We are not sure why they do this. Communication is a highly unlikely reason, since the radio waves they also transmit do a far better job of that than the shot frogs. We are left scratching our heads. Some think it might be a friendly greeting, or maybe a way of equalizing and distributing resources. Another possibility is that the shot frogs constitute a communication medium unregulated and unmonitored by people, and therefore private in nature, although this is a highly unlikely possibility.

Given all this information, it seems that towers too short to grind frogs might still engage in this tossing activity, and indeed we find that this is so. This happened once to me during research. I was on my tower (100') and discovered that it had engaged in this toss game. A frog was dropped mysteriously into the input of the frog-grinding camera I was wearing around my neck. It is obvious that a frog-grinding tower might shoot a frog to a frog-grinding camera, too, but the camera needs to be mounted securely at the time or resting against some immobile object. The camera treated the received frog as one that I had put in, waiting for me to press the shutter/grind button. The tower had nothing to say about it. Apparently, they're a little shy.

The output of frog-grinding towers, once they've done whatever they're going to do with the frogs, is via horizontal planar apex ejection, as mentioned earlier and seen in fig. 3. This can be shown by "photographs", but is impossible to prove by any other method I can think of. The dispersion arc can be anywhere from a narrow beam to a full circle, with complex intermediate patterns being most common. (see fig. 5) The geometry of the tower appears to have little effect. Because of the pattern of some of the outputs, it has been suggested² that some mechanism similar to that which determines electron orbital configurations in atoms is at work here. However, this is a highly unlikely and ridiculous argument.

Once the ground-up frog matter is ejected, what do ya suppose becomes of it? This is very difficult to determine. Due to the trees all around, you cannot find any frog parts that have fallen. By the time the output gets a good distance from the tower, it is so spread out that a wide field of view must be used on the frog-grinding camera. This exceeds the capabilities of the widest-angle "lens" available, so you must get back, which makes the little visible black specks so small you can't see them anymore. Due to the paucity of frog-grinding cameras, clusters of them cannot be lined up next to each other and pointed at different parts of the sky. Finding any output as it nears the ground is mostly a matter of luck. And skill.

The limited evidence that research has uncovered suggests that ejected frog parts probably follow an elliptical trajectory towards the ground. An approximation of the distance of ejection can easily be had by the following empirical formula:

	d = ½ þ h2
	where	d = distance from tower in millimeters,
		h = height of tower in feet
		and þ is a proportionality constant that includes a gust factor and an impressivity factor and varies with wind speed and direction, as well as with tower type.

With the use of the above formula, it becomes easy to solve a once very difficult puzzle. Even a baby could do it.

CONCLUSION

True frog-grinding towers show up well on the distant horizon due to their impressive height. Obviously, they can grind a great many frogs. A true frog-grinder will give itself away at night, revealing itself as an enormously tall bar of blinking lights. As you get into the two- and three thousand foot true frog-grinders, they start looking more and more like unbelievably tall sky needles that soar majestically into open space. Or like gargantuan Christmas trees. (at least some people think they do.) Imagine how a frog about to be tossed from such a tower feels, perched atop a narrow spindle half a mile up in the void of sky, at twice the elevation of the tippity top of the Empire State Building antenna.

What we can see is very impressive. Too bad the output of frog-grinding towers doesn't show up, too, but I can't do anything about that, so leave me alone. And, no, don't ask to borrow my frog-grinding camera, please. It is very expensive. Please, I am a monster. I would hate to have to easily tear you limb from limb with my large, enormous body and suck out your innardas with my huge, gross mouth like sucking pudding through a straw.

If you don't know the height of a tower for use in the formulas, call your local Bureau of Commerce and Towers (BCT). They will gladly supply the required information. If not, you should just call me. There is a little chance I might know it. Oh, and if you want the value of þ, I kind of think it might probably be between .000000128998624 and 54,589,780,000.

FIGURES

• Figure 1 (References: 1)
  Low-height rolloff of frog-grinding towers.
  Height in feet versus percentage of total existing towers at that height that grind frogs.
  
• Figure 2 (References: 1)
  A mythical double tower- rarely seen.
  
  
• Figure 3 (References: 1, 2)
  A "photograph" of the output of a 750-foot tower west of San Antonio, Texas.
  
  
• Figure 4 (References: 1)
  A group of frog-grinding towers south of Houston, Texas. Some of these are 'true frog-grinders', 1000 feet or taller.
  
  
• Figure 5 (References: 1)
  

Frog-grinding towers in various output modes. Note that distance of pattern from tower represents magnitude of radiation, not a 'fallout circle distance.'

5a	Standard full-circle
5b	Double detached dipole mode
5c	Single-double quadrionic mode
5d	Totally random



• Figure 6 (References: 1)
  The Author on his 100 foot tower's swing
  

REFERENCES

1. F. Griner and T. Bowers
   "Exactly Four Hundred Feet: A Perplexing Response Cutoff Phenomenon, Möglichkeiten"
   Journal of Industrial, Commercial, and Residential Science, Feb. 1996 (Ref from here.)
   
2. Potterson, Rone, and Rone
   "Analytical Chemistry and Analytical Towers"
   Bumpfield Scientific Quarterly, June 1996 (Ref from here.)