Re: SETI public: artificial signal definition

From: william edmondson (w.h.edmondson_at_cs.bham.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 29 2004 - 04:55:57 PDT

  • Next message: Dr. H. Paul Shuch: "Re: SETI public: artificial signal definition"

    Hi again Pete

    Re the use of the Hydrogen line. All is not as it seems.

    I put that in the paper, sure, and as I understand it much SETI work
    assumes the same thing - look for a signal at 1.42GHz......

    But the technique is not limited to that, or even to RF. Optical SETI
    would work fine using the pulsar/beacon paradigm.

    However, think carefully about the 1.42. And this may really annoy
    those involved in Project Argus... ;-(

    Eric Gerard, the ex-director of the Nancay radio telescope in France,
    has pointed out to me that searching at 1.42 does not actually make
    sense if we assume ETI is interested in radio astronomy.

    He wrote to me as follows:

    "My first comment is that I am worried about the RFI that the ETI will
    face and that we should also face if we start transmitting ourselves.
    We of course content ourselves with passive listening to Habstars like
    you
    suggest in your Arecibo proposal but if all civilizations keep listening
    and no one ever transmits....

    I see that you plan to listen on 3 frequencies namely the HI line at
    1420.405 MHz
    and the 2 main line OH lines at 1665.40 and 1667.359 MHz.

    As you know, those lines are fortunately protected from earth's
    transmitters
    since all transmissions are prohibited world wide in the band
    1400.0-1427.0 MHz
    (this is for HI) while the radioastronomy service has primary status in
    the
    band 1660.0-1670.0 MHz (this for the 2 OH main lines).

    I must tell you about some experience that I have from the time
    (1982-1989)
    when I was IHW (Intenational Halley Watch) Discipline Scientist for
    Europe.
    We received a quite interesting proposal from John Ponsonby of Jodrell
    Bank
    (Univ.of Manchester), John had a very smart concept which consisted in
    radiating some 50 kWatts at the main line of OH at 1667.359 MHz such as
    to
    quench the natural maser emission of comet Halley. Once the radar was
    stopped,
    the natural maser emission was to recover in about a half-hour and this
    could
    yield precious information as to how cometary masers work.

    I defended John's concept in Washington DC during a meeting preparatory
    to the
    Halley worldwide campaign. ...and we lost. The IUCAF (International
    Committee
    for Radioastronomy Freqeuncy Allocations and Protections) refused to
    grant the
    right to transmit in a major protected band even for a limited amount
    of time.

    Since then, as you certainly are aware, The RFI situation has gotten
    much
    worse and radio freqeuncy protection is now a major concern in all radio
    observatories worldwide.

    If ETI know about pulsars, they certainly know about RFI and I am not
    sure
    that they don't reinforce themselves the protection of radio frequency
    bands.

    This is not to say that the concept of "utilizing pulsars as SETI
    beacons" is
    not valid but if they use 1420.405 MHz, 1665.40 and 1667.359 MHz, it
    should be with utmost care or perhaps in a way such that they do not
    cause
    pollution or limited pollution.

    And there may be several ways to do so: for instance on a time sharing
    basis,
    or with very clean transmitter sidelobes, or with special coding or
    whatever."

    So - we may be looking at the wrong frequencies. We'd have to think
    about where to look instead, and one "obvious" (??) place would be the
    'mid-points' of the H/OH pairings. 1542.9025 and 1543.882 MHz These
    are nicely near each other, and bang in the middle of the water hole.

    But maybe there are a million different notions of 'obvious' here.

    Which is one reason why optical may be much easier (and pulsars are not
    bright objects in the visible spectrum, so Schneider mode is
    unproblematic).

    Cheers

    William


  • Next message: Dr. H. Paul Shuch: "Re: SETI public: artificial signal definition"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Sep 29 2004 - 05:43:05 PDT