They have a paper available at their site: "The
Technical Case for Optical and Infrared SETI". Have
you looked this over?
Their comparison of narrow temporal pulse detection
in OSETI with narrowband frequency detection in MSETI
seemed awfully interesting to me?
Al
> Fractenna@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: SETI Re: Is radio the last word?
> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:01:11 EST
> From: Fractenna@aol.com
> To: seti@sni.net
>
> In a message dated 2/2/99 2:33:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> n6tx@setileague.org writes:
>
> <<
> >This is exactly the kind of non-scientific response that's going to pull
> SETI
> >down the tubes Paul. Care to recant?
>
> Not really, Chip; it was a non-scientific question. (Or rather, a
> Social-Science question, which most physical scientists would do well to
> dodge.) You're asking me to guess as to ETI's motives, thought process and
> constraints, as well as their technology, and I just can't do that. I
> suppose I could say "ETI won't use lasers because Prof. Cohen has proven
> that they're not the most efficient medium of interstellar communication."
> But how do I know they've read your articles?
> OTOH, I can't say "ETI will use lasers because they haven't read Prof.
> Cohen's articles," since they may well have their own Prof. Cohen to guide
> their actions!
> So it's quite frankly anybody's guess whether radio, or lasers, or
> anything else, will work. I for one say: do the experiments -- *all* of
> them we can afford to do -- and see where they lead us. Arguing about
> what ETI might be thinking is fruitless.
> And now I need to bow out of the speculative discussion of the day. I
> have work to do for our members. (And thanks again, Chip, for including
> yourself in that select company.)
> 73, Paul
>
> ------
>
> No Paul; That is not the case. I am not arguing about how ET might think. I am
> saying--as I made clear already--that there is no basis for regarding lasers
> in cosmic telecommunication. IF you can give a reason why they should
> considered, then do so. Show us how they have a better figure of merit than
> other modalities that have been considered.
>
> If you are unfamiliar with the arguments, then kindly say so. But please do
> not present them unless you can either defend them, or point out a reference
> where such a defense is suggested. (Kingsley's page, for example, argues for
> point to point laser communication within order 100 LY distances. This type of
> argument has an exceedingly low figure of merit because the number of
> potential targets is exceedingly small. Thus this is not a defensible position
> in SETI unless the number of detectable civilizations approaches the billion
> (or more) mark. )
>
> This is not a minor argument Paul; it is a major scientific point. If you do
> not feel that your position in the SETI League avails yourself to such an
> explanation, then say so; but please do not present this dubious modality as a
> viable option (notice I did not bring it up.) It misleads people who do not
> have the information resources to make their own judgements.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.