A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » SETI
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 26th 04, 10:35 PM
David Woolley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

In article ,
"a servant of Isa, Yeshua John15.13@Heaven" (bogus address) wrote:

[ sci.astro.seti added, as that is a more appropriate newsgroup for a
posting with a science content. ]

Subject: Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI


You are addressing this to the wrong place, as there is no such
organisation as SETI (SETI is a process done by many organisations)
and Berkeley Space Sciences don't often read these newsgroups (they are
more likely to read sci.astro.seti, but even then don't often contribute).

I don't understand Your DATA i file *work_unit.sah*


You are not particularly supposed to, although they havn't taken any
steps to obfuscate it. They don't want people doing their own
analysis and either making a mistake in the analysis process and making
false claims of a detection, or even making a real detection and
getting to the press before them (the former being much more likely).

However, the parameter part is fairly obvious and the uuencode type level
of the encoding can easily be stripped. It is clear from the parameters
that the data is a sequence of complex numbers containing only the sign
bit for each of the real and imaginary parts; that part can easily be
resolved by a few experiments to determine the sequence of the data and
how it is interleaved. There is one other subtlety in that the splitting
calculations roll the spectrum, but people have solved that one as well
by trying test data.

and therefore I have NO chance to compare with own downloads from the
Univers (I have NOT make them yet, but I wish to do it)


S@H 1 work units are only suitable for antennas with the same beam width
as Arecibo, although BOINC provides additional parameters to remove
that restriction. A lot of the frequency resolution will be wasted as
well, as the frequency stability of amateur equipment is one to two
orders of magnitude worse than that for which S@H is optimised; that will
mean that an awful lot of time will be wasted processing 128K FFTs on
data that might only support 4K FFTs, unless you completely fake the
time scales of the data, in which case you will end up wasting
time processing chirp rates that are unreasonably large, will not be
using the full beamwidth in drift scan mode and will require a much
larger receiver bandwidth.

In the FUTURE people on Earth will understand, that it is important, we use


The SETI League has been doing this for the best part of a decade
(http://www.setileague.org). Note that there are still very few active
stations and that is with a lower technical specification than you
are assuming.

a lot of small radio-telescopes, so that we can focus on many objects on the


Focussing on many objects at the same can also be done using relatively
compact phased arrays, e.g. the Allen telescope.

sky at the same time and for a long periode (more than a week, I think).


That requires steerable antennas. Most people doing amateur SETI can
only afford, or only live with the neighbours, by using fixed antennas.

Because you have to do non-coherent averaging of the signal
above about 10 seconds, with a stable receiver and more like above 0.1s,
with an amateur system, and taking into account the relative sizes of the
antennas, you will need to observe for over a day to match 13 seconds
of Arecibo time. That means that the first order chirp (second order
Doppler) corrections in the client will be totally inadequate.

In fact, it works out that small antenna SETI is best for short duration
signals, as long duration signals will stay around to be found by the
much more sensitive large antennas. The real advantage of small antennas
is that a small number of them can, together, simultaneously cover the
whole sky, alowing the detection of short duration signals.

Here in Denmark we can NOT see around the Center of our Galaxy, ...


Note that there is a European Radio Astronomy Society (ERAC).

more stars, MORE (hypothetic) Life-2.


Using large dishes is the way to get more stars. The range scales with
diameter and volume with the cube, meaning n times diameter allows you
to search n^3 stars.

Especially for small dishes, the range limits mean that there is unlikely
to be much benefit in aiming within the galactic plane. Any contact
which is far enough out for spherical symmettry to have broken down will
have a very long round trip time. Most of the benefit that is associated
with the galactic centre would apply to any direction in the galactic
plane, but even straight out of the plane takes you to over 1000 years
round trip time.

Group 1 can watch frequency 1,42000 GHz.
Group 2 can watch frequency 1,42001 GHz


In practice, some people will have receivers that have much wider pass bands.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that large enough numbers of people
are interested to be able to form multiple groups.

("Hello"-signal time-interval perhaps every 2 weeks)


Small dish SETI is only likely to produce comparable detection rates to
big dish SETI (approximately zero in 20 years).

Arecibo:
305m - 73.062 m^2


The effective diameter is rather less (about 100m for the line feed on
the carriage house and up to 200m for the Gregorian).

Antenna signal-minimum:
1*10^-23 Watt / m^2 * 73.062 m^2 = 7,3*10^19 Watt


Depends on detection thresholds and integration time. Your estimate
is rather pessimistic. See below.

Little-Radio-reflector:
2m - 3,14 m^2


Typical amateur SETI is 3 or 4m, ex C-Band TVRO (in the USA). ERAC claims
to be able to source dishes in Europe.

7,3*10^19 Watt / 3,14 m^2 = 2,3*10^19 Watt/m^2


This is a rather round about way of doing things. The threshold power,
as described in the FAQ, is kT per Hertz, where the bandwidth for Arecibo
is about 100 times better than a typical amateur system, and the system noise
is likely to be less as well. The SERENDIP system has an overall T of
about 45K. About 12K of this is extrasterrestial, so irreducible.

You can't use this as the actual threshold, but must multiply it by a factor
to produce an acceptable false positive rate. That's 8 for Phoenix and 22
for S@H; S@H is larger because of the large number of different parameters
it tries.

k is 1.38066...E-23 J/K.

So the noise is about 3E-23 W in 0.05Hz. Using an 8 times threshold
(basically assumes signal is source chirp compensated) it's about 2.4E-22.

Multiplying by the capture area and using a SERENDIP type 100m radius,
gives about 3E-26 W/m^2 in 0.05Hz.

Such kind of antenna, You use, must be very expensive!


A cheap one (around 200 US $) - how good is it ?
(1*10^10 Watt ?)


The antenna won't make much difference, once you have a big enough
area (1m is probably too small for 1.4GHz as it's only five wavelengths
across). What matters is the low noise amplifier, which should be around
US$100 to get well within an order of magnitude of the Arecibo figure,
and the stability of the receiver, and most people seem to assume 10Hz
in the short term. Being pessimistic on the noise, the threshold power
will be about 400 times worse, so 1E-19 W in 10 Hz.

You'll need to under illuminate the dish, to avoid looking at the hot
ground, so maybe use 0.5 * pi. That gives about 6E-20 W/m^2 in 10 Hz.

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^10 Watt ?)


If you are talking about effective isotropic power (EIRP) that is not
big in a SETI context. Arecibo can do over 1E13 Watts. However, the
answer is that you are many orders of magnitude below the 10 second
integration detection threshold, even from the nearest star, at that
level. If you go to a four metre dish, get the receiver stable to
1 Hz, and average over 200 seconds, you begin to achieve a few 10s of
light year range (see the FAQ for details).

If it can, I find it important, that You create a program we all can
understand and use together to synchronization our positions.


Who is you. Berkeley SSL are probably not even reading the thread, and
they have no mandate to fund your research. There are a number of
pieces of software, e.g. SETI-Fox, for processing amateur SETI inputs,
available on the web.

The servant of Michael


Drop this and your From line name, as they devalue your contribution.

PS. You have a broken newsreader. You have posted this as a followup,
but it doesn't have a References header.

PPS. I hope all the arithmetic is right!
  #2  
Old May 26th 04, 10:35 PM
David Woolley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

In article ,
"a servant of Isa, Yeshua John15.13@Heaven" (bogus address) wrote:

[ sci.astro.seti added, as that is a more appropriate newsgroup for a
posting with a science content. ]

Subject: Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI


You are addressing this to the wrong place, as there is no such
organisation as SETI (SETI is a process done by many organisations)
and Berkeley Space Sciences don't often read these newsgroups (they are
more likely to read sci.astro.seti, but even then don't often contribute).

I don't understand Your DATA i file *work_unit.sah*


You are not particularly supposed to, although they havn't taken any
steps to obfuscate it. They don't want people doing their own
analysis and either making a mistake in the analysis process and making
false claims of a detection, or even making a real detection and
getting to the press before them (the former being much more likely).

However, the parameter part is fairly obvious and the uuencode type level
of the encoding can easily be stripped. It is clear from the parameters
that the data is a sequence of complex numbers containing only the sign
bit for each of the real and imaginary parts; that part can easily be
resolved by a few experiments to determine the sequence of the data and
how it is interleaved. There is one other subtlety in that the splitting
calculations roll the spectrum, but people have solved that one as well
by trying test data.

and therefore I have NO chance to compare with own downloads from the
Univers (I have NOT make them yet, but I wish to do it)


S@H 1 work units are only suitable for antennas with the same beam width
as Arecibo, although BOINC provides additional parameters to remove
that restriction. A lot of the frequency resolution will be wasted as
well, as the frequency stability of amateur equipment is one to two
orders of magnitude worse than that for which S@H is optimised; that will
mean that an awful lot of time will be wasted processing 128K FFTs on
data that might only support 4K FFTs, unless you completely fake the
time scales of the data, in which case you will end up wasting
time processing chirp rates that are unreasonably large, will not be
using the full beamwidth in drift scan mode and will require a much
larger receiver bandwidth.

In the FUTURE people on Earth will understand, that it is important, we use


The SETI League has been doing this for the best part of a decade
(http://www.setileague.org). Note that there are still very few active
stations and that is with a lower technical specification than you
are assuming.

a lot of small radio-telescopes, so that we can focus on many objects on the


Focussing on many objects at the same can also be done using relatively
compact phased arrays, e.g. the Allen telescope.

sky at the same time and for a long periode (more than a week, I think).


That requires steerable antennas. Most people doing amateur SETI can
only afford, or only live with the neighbours, by using fixed antennas.

Because you have to do non-coherent averaging of the signal
above about 10 seconds, with a stable receiver and more like above 0.1s,
with an amateur system, and taking into account the relative sizes of the
antennas, you will need to observe for over a day to match 13 seconds
of Arecibo time. That means that the first order chirp (second order
Doppler) corrections in the client will be totally inadequate.

In fact, it works out that small antenna SETI is best for short duration
signals, as long duration signals will stay around to be found by the
much more sensitive large antennas. The real advantage of small antennas
is that a small number of them can, together, simultaneously cover the
whole sky, alowing the detection of short duration signals.

Here in Denmark we can NOT see around the Center of our Galaxy, ...


Note that there is a European Radio Astronomy Society (ERAC).

more stars, MORE (hypothetic) Life-2.


Using large dishes is the way to get more stars. The range scales with
diameter and volume with the cube, meaning n times diameter allows you
to search n^3 stars.

Especially for small dishes, the range limits mean that there is unlikely
to be much benefit in aiming within the galactic plane. Any contact
which is far enough out for spherical symmettry to have broken down will
have a very long round trip time. Most of the benefit that is associated
with the galactic centre would apply to any direction in the galactic
plane, but even straight out of the plane takes you to over 1000 years
round trip time.

Group 1 can watch frequency 1,42000 GHz.
Group 2 can watch frequency 1,42001 GHz


In practice, some people will have receivers that have much wider pass bands.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that large enough numbers of people
are interested to be able to form multiple groups.

("Hello"-signal time-interval perhaps every 2 weeks)


Small dish SETI is only likely to produce comparable detection rates to
big dish SETI (approximately zero in 20 years).

Arecibo:
305m - 73.062 m^2


The effective diameter is rather less (about 100m for the line feed on
the carriage house and up to 200m for the Gregorian).

Antenna signal-minimum:
1*10^-23 Watt / m^2 * 73.062 m^2 = 7,3*10^19 Watt


Depends on detection thresholds and integration time. Your estimate
is rather pessimistic. See below.

Little-Radio-reflector:
2m - 3,14 m^2


Typical amateur SETI is 3 or 4m, ex C-Band TVRO (in the USA). ERAC claims
to be able to source dishes in Europe.

7,3*10^19 Watt / 3,14 m^2 = 2,3*10^19 Watt/m^2


This is a rather round about way of doing things. The threshold power,
as described in the FAQ, is kT per Hertz, where the bandwidth for Arecibo
is about 100 times better than a typical amateur system, and the system noise
is likely to be less as well. The SERENDIP system has an overall T of
about 45K. About 12K of this is extrasterrestial, so irreducible.

You can't use this as the actual threshold, but must multiply it by a factor
to produce an acceptable false positive rate. That's 8 for Phoenix and 22
for S@H; S@H is larger because of the large number of different parameters
it tries.

k is 1.38066...E-23 J/K.

So the noise is about 3E-23 W in 0.05Hz. Using an 8 times threshold
(basically assumes signal is source chirp compensated) it's about 2.4E-22.

Multiplying by the capture area and using a SERENDIP type 100m radius,
gives about 3E-26 W/m^2 in 0.05Hz.

Such kind of antenna, You use, must be very expensive!


A cheap one (around 200 US $) - how good is it ?
(1*10^10 Watt ?)


The antenna won't make much difference, once you have a big enough
area (1m is probably too small for 1.4GHz as it's only five wavelengths
across). What matters is the low noise amplifier, which should be around
US$100 to get well within an order of magnitude of the Arecibo figure,
and the stability of the receiver, and most people seem to assume 10Hz
in the short term. Being pessimistic on the noise, the threshold power
will be about 400 times worse, so 1E-19 W in 10 Hz.

You'll need to under illuminate the dish, to avoid looking at the hot
ground, so maybe use 0.5 * pi. That gives about 6E-20 W/m^2 in 10 Hz.

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^10 Watt ?)


If you are talking about effective isotropic power (EIRP) that is not
big in a SETI context. Arecibo can do over 1E13 Watts. However, the
answer is that you are many orders of magnitude below the 10 second
integration detection threshold, even from the nearest star, at that
level. If you go to a four metre dish, get the receiver stable to
1 Hz, and average over 200 seconds, you begin to achieve a few 10s of
light year range (see the FAQ for details).

If it can, I find it important, that You create a program we all can
understand and use together to synchronization our positions.


Who is you. Berkeley SSL are probably not even reading the thread, and
they have no mandate to fund your research. There are a number of
pieces of software, e.g. SETI-Fox, for processing amateur SETI inputs,
available on the web.

The servant of Michael


Drop this and your From line name, as they devalue your contribution.

PS. You have a broken newsreader. You have posted this as a followup,
but it doesn't have a References header.

PPS. I hope all the arithmetic is right!
  #3  
Old May 27th 04, 01:04 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


In article ,
"a servant of Isa, Yeshua John15.13@Heaven" (bogus address) wrote:

[ sci.astro.seti added, as that is a more appropriate newsgroup for a
posting with a science content. ]

Subject: Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI


You are addressing this to the wrong place, as there is no such
organisation as SETI (SETI is a process done by many organisations)
and Berkeley Space Sciences don't often read these newsgroups (they are
more likely to read sci.astro.seti, but even then don't often contribute).

I don't understand Your DATA i file *work_unit.sah*


You are not particularly supposed to, although they havn't taken any
steps to obfuscate it. They don't want people doing their own
analysis and either making a mistake in the analysis process and making
false claims of a detection, or even making a real detection and
getting to the press before them (the former being much more likely).

However, the parameter part is fairly obvious and the uuencode type level
of the encoding can easily be stripped. It is clear from the parameters
that the data is a sequence of complex numbers containing only the sign
bit for each of the real and imaginary parts; that part can easily be
resolved by a few experiments to determine the sequence of the data and
how it is interleaved. There is one other subtlety in that the splitting
calculations roll the spectrum, but people have solved that one as well
by trying test data.

and therefore I have NO chance to compare with own downloads from the
Univers (I have NOT make them yet, but I wish to do it)


S@H 1 work units are only suitable for antennas with the same beam width
as Arecibo, although BOINC provides additional parameters to remove
that restriction. A lot of the frequency resolution will be wasted as
well, as the frequency stability of amateur equipment is one to two
orders of magnitude worse than that for which S@H is optimised; that will
mean that an awful lot of time will be wasted processing 128K FFTs on
data that might only support 4K FFTs, unless you completely fake the
time scales of the data, in which case you will end up wasting
time processing chirp rates that are unreasonably large, will not be
using the full beamwidth in drift scan mode and will require a much
larger receiver bandwidth.

In the FUTURE people on Earth will understand, that it is important, we
use


The SETI League has been doing this for the best part of a decade
(http://www.setileague.org). Note that there are still very few active
stations and that is with a lower technical specification than you
are assuming.

a lot of small radio-telescopes, so that we can focus on many objects on
the


Focussing on many objects at the same can also be done using relatively
compact phased arrays, e.g. the Allen telescope.

sky at the same time and for a long periode (more than a week, I think).


That requires steerable antennas. Most people doing amateur SETI can
only afford, or only live with the neighbours, by using fixed antennas.

Because you have to do non-coherent averaging of the signal
above about 10 seconds, with a stable receiver and more like above 0.1s,
with an amateur system, and taking into account the relative sizes of the
antennas, you will need to observe for over a day to match 13 seconds
of Arecibo time. That means that the first order chirp (second order
Doppler) corrections in the client will be totally inadequate.

In fact, it works out that small antenna SETI is best for short duration
signals, as long duration signals will stay around to be found by the
much more sensitive large antennas. The real advantage of small antennas
is that a small number of them can, together, simultaneously cover the
whole sky, alowing the detection of short duration signals.

Here in Denmark we can NOT see around the Center of our Galaxy, ...


Note that there is a European Radio Astronomy Society (ERAC).

more stars, MORE (hypothetic) Life-2.


Using large dishes is the way to get more stars. The range scales with
diameter and volume with the cube, meaning n times diameter allows you
to search n^3 stars.

Especially for small dishes, the range limits mean that there is unlikely
to be much benefit in aiming within the galactic plane. Any contact
which is far enough out for spherical symmettry to have broken down will
have a very long round trip time. Most of the benefit that is associated
with the galactic centre would apply to any direction in the galactic
plane, but even straight out of the plane takes you to over 1000 years
round trip time.

Group 1 can watch frequency 1,42000 GHz.
Group 2 can watch frequency 1,42001 GHz


In practice, some people will have receivers that have much wider pass
bands.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that large enough numbers of
people
are interested to be able to form multiple groups.

("Hello"-signal time-interval perhaps every 2 weeks)


Small dish SETI is only likely to produce comparable detection rates to
big dish SETI (approximately zero in 20 years).

Arecibo:
305m - 73.062 m^2


The effective diameter is rather less (about 100m for the line feed on
the carriage house and up to 200m for the Gregorian).

Antenna signal-minimum:
1*10^-23 Watt / m^2 * 73.062 m^2 = 7,3*10^19 Watt


Depends on detection thresholds and integration time. Your estimate
is rather pessimistic. See below.

Little-Radio-reflector:
2m - 3,14 m^2


Typical amateur SETI is 3 or 4m, ex C-Band TVRO (in the USA). ERAC claims
to be able to source dishes in Europe.

7,3*10^19 Watt / 3,14 m^2 = 2,3*10^19 Watt/m^2


This is a rather round about way of doing things. The threshold power,
as described in the FAQ, is kT per Hertz, where the bandwidth for Arecibo
is about 100 times better than a typical amateur system, and the system
noise
is likely to be less as well. The SERENDIP system has an overall T of
about 45K. About 12K of this is extrasterrestial, so irreducible.

You can't use this as the actual threshold, but must multiply it by a
factor
to produce an acceptable false positive rate. That's 8 for Phoenix and 22
for S@H; S@H is larger because of the large number of different parameters
it tries.

k is 1.38066...E-23 J/K.

So the noise is about 3E-23 W in 0.05Hz. Using an 8 times threshold
(basically assumes signal is source chirp compensated) it's about 2.4E-22.

Multiplying by the capture area and using a SERENDIP type 100m radius,
gives about 3E-26 W/m^2 in 0.05Hz.

Such kind of antenna, You use, must be very expensive!


A cheap one (around 200 US $) - how good is it ?
(1*10^10 Watt ?)


The antenna won't make much difference, once you have a big enough
area (1m is probably too small for 1.4GHz as it's only five wavelengths
across). What matters is the low noise amplifier, which should be around
US$100 to get well within an order of magnitude of the Arecibo figure,
and the stability of the receiver, and most people seem to assume 10Hz
in the short term. Being pessimistic on the noise, the threshold power
will be about 400 times worse, so 1E-19 W in 10 Hz.

You'll need to under illuminate the dish, to avoid looking at the hot
ground, so maybe use 0.5 * pi. That gives about 6E-20 W/m^2 in 10 Hz.

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^10 Watt ?)


If you are talking about effective isotropic power (EIRP) that is not
big in a SETI context. Arecibo can do over 1E13 Watts. However, the
answer is that you are many orders of magnitude below the 10 second
integration detection threshold, even from the nearest star, at that
level. If you go to a four metre dish, get the receiver stable to
1 Hz, and average over 200 seconds, you begin to achieve a few 10s of
light year range (see the FAQ for details).

If it can, I find it important, that You create a program we all can
understand and use together to synchronization our positions.


Who is you. Berkeley SSL are probably not even reading the thread, and
they have no mandate to fund your research. There are a number of
pieces of software, e.g. SETI-Fox, for processing amateur SETI inputs,
available on the web.

The servant of Michael


Drop this and your From line name, as they devalue your contribution.

PS. You have a broken newsreader. You have posted this as a followup,
but it doesn't have a References header.

PPS. I hope all the arithmetic is right!



Thank you for your responce.

I'm very bad in english (I'm danish), so it will take me a long time to
understand, what you have been written.

I will be back :-)

-

Another thing:

Are you in able to crack the code, se ...

2233
english version ...
2305

(You can win around 140 US $, if You are the first one)


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

File-number:
2338


  #4  
Old May 27th 04, 01:04 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


In article ,
"a servant of Isa, Yeshua John15.13@Heaven" (bogus address) wrote:

[ sci.astro.seti added, as that is a more appropriate newsgroup for a
posting with a science content. ]

Subject: Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI


You are addressing this to the wrong place, as there is no such
organisation as SETI (SETI is a process done by many organisations)
and Berkeley Space Sciences don't often read these newsgroups (they are
more likely to read sci.astro.seti, but even then don't often contribute).

I don't understand Your DATA i file *work_unit.sah*


You are not particularly supposed to, although they havn't taken any
steps to obfuscate it. They don't want people doing their own
analysis and either making a mistake in the analysis process and making
false claims of a detection, or even making a real detection and
getting to the press before them (the former being much more likely).

However, the parameter part is fairly obvious and the uuencode type level
of the encoding can easily be stripped. It is clear from the parameters
that the data is a sequence of complex numbers containing only the sign
bit for each of the real and imaginary parts; that part can easily be
resolved by a few experiments to determine the sequence of the data and
how it is interleaved. There is one other subtlety in that the splitting
calculations roll the spectrum, but people have solved that one as well
by trying test data.

and therefore I have NO chance to compare with own downloads from the
Univers (I have NOT make them yet, but I wish to do it)


S@H 1 work units are only suitable for antennas with the same beam width
as Arecibo, although BOINC provides additional parameters to remove
that restriction. A lot of the frequency resolution will be wasted as
well, as the frequency stability of amateur equipment is one to two
orders of magnitude worse than that for which S@H is optimised; that will
mean that an awful lot of time will be wasted processing 128K FFTs on
data that might only support 4K FFTs, unless you completely fake the
time scales of the data, in which case you will end up wasting
time processing chirp rates that are unreasonably large, will not be
using the full beamwidth in drift scan mode and will require a much
larger receiver bandwidth.

In the FUTURE people on Earth will understand, that it is important, we
use


The SETI League has been doing this for the best part of a decade
(http://www.setileague.org). Note that there are still very few active
stations and that is with a lower technical specification than you
are assuming.

a lot of small radio-telescopes, so that we can focus on many objects on
the


Focussing on many objects at the same can also be done using relatively
compact phased arrays, e.g. the Allen telescope.

sky at the same time and for a long periode (more than a week, I think).


That requires steerable antennas. Most people doing amateur SETI can
only afford, or only live with the neighbours, by using fixed antennas.

Because you have to do non-coherent averaging of the signal
above about 10 seconds, with a stable receiver and more like above 0.1s,
with an amateur system, and taking into account the relative sizes of the
antennas, you will need to observe for over a day to match 13 seconds
of Arecibo time. That means that the first order chirp (second order
Doppler) corrections in the client will be totally inadequate.

In fact, it works out that small antenna SETI is best for short duration
signals, as long duration signals will stay around to be found by the
much more sensitive large antennas. The real advantage of small antennas
is that a small number of them can, together, simultaneously cover the
whole sky, alowing the detection of short duration signals.

Here in Denmark we can NOT see around the Center of our Galaxy, ...


Note that there is a European Radio Astronomy Society (ERAC).

more stars, MORE (hypothetic) Life-2.


Using large dishes is the way to get more stars. The range scales with
diameter and volume with the cube, meaning n times diameter allows you
to search n^3 stars.

Especially for small dishes, the range limits mean that there is unlikely
to be much benefit in aiming within the galactic plane. Any contact
which is far enough out for spherical symmettry to have broken down will
have a very long round trip time. Most of the benefit that is associated
with the galactic centre would apply to any direction in the galactic
plane, but even straight out of the plane takes you to over 1000 years
round trip time.

Group 1 can watch frequency 1,42000 GHz.
Group 2 can watch frequency 1,42001 GHz


In practice, some people will have receivers that have much wider pass
bands.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that large enough numbers of
people
are interested to be able to form multiple groups.

("Hello"-signal time-interval perhaps every 2 weeks)


Small dish SETI is only likely to produce comparable detection rates to
big dish SETI (approximately zero in 20 years).

Arecibo:
305m - 73.062 m^2


The effective diameter is rather less (about 100m for the line feed on
the carriage house and up to 200m for the Gregorian).

Antenna signal-minimum:
1*10^-23 Watt / m^2 * 73.062 m^2 = 7,3*10^19 Watt


Depends on detection thresholds and integration time. Your estimate
is rather pessimistic. See below.

Little-Radio-reflector:
2m - 3,14 m^2


Typical amateur SETI is 3 or 4m, ex C-Band TVRO (in the USA). ERAC claims
to be able to source dishes in Europe.

7,3*10^19 Watt / 3,14 m^2 = 2,3*10^19 Watt/m^2


This is a rather round about way of doing things. The threshold power,
as described in the FAQ, is kT per Hertz, where the bandwidth for Arecibo
is about 100 times better than a typical amateur system, and the system
noise
is likely to be less as well. The SERENDIP system has an overall T of
about 45K. About 12K of this is extrasterrestial, so irreducible.

You can't use this as the actual threshold, but must multiply it by a
factor
to produce an acceptable false positive rate. That's 8 for Phoenix and 22
for S@H; S@H is larger because of the large number of different parameters
it tries.

k is 1.38066...E-23 J/K.

So the noise is about 3E-23 W in 0.05Hz. Using an 8 times threshold
(basically assumes signal is source chirp compensated) it's about 2.4E-22.

Multiplying by the capture area and using a SERENDIP type 100m radius,
gives about 3E-26 W/m^2 in 0.05Hz.

Such kind of antenna, You use, must be very expensive!


A cheap one (around 200 US $) - how good is it ?
(1*10^10 Watt ?)


The antenna won't make much difference, once you have a big enough
area (1m is probably too small for 1.4GHz as it's only five wavelengths
across). What matters is the low noise amplifier, which should be around
US$100 to get well within an order of magnitude of the Arecibo figure,
and the stability of the receiver, and most people seem to assume 10Hz
in the short term. Being pessimistic on the noise, the threshold power
will be about 400 times worse, so 1E-19 W in 10 Hz.

You'll need to under illuminate the dish, to avoid looking at the hot
ground, so maybe use 0.5 * pi. That gives about 6E-20 W/m^2 in 10 Hz.

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^10 Watt ?)


If you are talking about effective isotropic power (EIRP) that is not
big in a SETI context. Arecibo can do over 1E13 Watts. However, the
answer is that you are many orders of magnitude below the 10 second
integration detection threshold, even from the nearest star, at that
level. If you go to a four metre dish, get the receiver stable to
1 Hz, and average over 200 seconds, you begin to achieve a few 10s of
light year range (see the FAQ for details).

If it can, I find it important, that You create a program we all can
understand and use together to synchronization our positions.


Who is you. Berkeley SSL are probably not even reading the thread, and
they have no mandate to fund your research. There are a number of
pieces of software, e.g. SETI-Fox, for processing amateur SETI inputs,
available on the web.

The servant of Michael


Drop this and your From line name, as they devalue your contribution.

PS. You have a broken newsreader. You have posted this as a followup,
but it doesn't have a References header.

PPS. I hope all the arithmetic is right!



Thank you for your responce.

I'm very bad in english (I'm danish), so it will take me a long time to
understand, what you have been written.

I will be back :-)

-

Another thing:

Are you in able to crack the code, se ...

2233
english version ...
2305

(You can win around 140 US $, if You are the first one)


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

File-number:
2338


  #5  
Old May 27th 04, 05:30 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


[ ... ]
I don't understand Your DATA i file *work_unit.sah*


You are not particularly supposed to, although they havn't taken any
steps to obfuscate it. They don't want people doing their own
analysis and either making a mistake in the analysis process and making
false claims of a detection, or even making a real detection and
getting to the press before them (the former being much more likely).


I understand :-)

That's crazy!

2 brains can think MORE smart than just óne, and what about 6.000 millions ?

However, the parameter part is fairly obvious and the uuencode type level
of the encoding can easily be stripped. ...


:-)

... It is clear from the parameters
that the data is a sequence of complex numbers containing ...


What do You exactly mean by this ? - Which kind of parameters ?

Are You talk'ing about the fictiv Ra and Dec ?
(example: 40 hr ... 28 deg )

... only the sign
bit for each of the real and imaginary parts; ...


Does this means, that the amplitude (the level) still is there ?

... that part can easily be
resolved by a few experiments to determine the sequence of the data and
how it is interleaved.


Can You explain this for me ?

I have a lille DATA-string here, downloaded from SETI, see ...

2337

(use Courier New to read)

=== start of quote ===
....
coord22= 2452697.36447 26.489 -0.78
end_seti_header
530 65 72 0A 4E 35 48 21 48 44 56 58 49 53 22 24 41 er?N5H!HDVXIS"$A
540 22 45 4F 4B 37 3B 56 4E 2C 4F 37 52 59 23 3C 35 "EOK7;VN,O7RY#5
550 2E 3E 35 5A 34 22 23 3F 2D 42 24 37 20 23 5B 5F .5Z4"#?-B$7 #[_
560 25 36 3E 4E 3F 3A 26 41 47 2A 26 33 5D 4E 20 2E %6N?:&AG*&3]N .
570 22 3A 55 0A 2F 37 3B 5E 5C 4B 5E 37 52 5F 54 28 ":U?/7;^\K^7R_T(
580 28 3A 5B 2E 23 21 4C 2A 48 5B 2F 20 20 21 22 4C (:[.#!L*H[/ !"L
590 43 37 4F 29 5F 4F 36 26 31 44 28 48 20 56 43 2B C7O)_O6&1D(H VC+
5A0 54 51 2A 51 2A 54 48 2D 25 24 3B 53 3B 31 28 43 TQ*Q*TH-%$;S;1(C
5B0 55 4C 26 28 0A 23 49 52 42 33 41 36 20 47 4D 41 UL&(?#IRB3A6 GMA
5C0 3E 3C 4F 36 2E 44 45 25 5C 3C 45 24 46 29 3F 4C O6.DE%\E$F)?L
5D0 27 25 42 50 26 41 52 5A 2A 4E 31 2F 56 4F 42 3E '%BP&ARZ*N1/VOB
5E0 48 31 25 53 47 3E 47 39 3D 3B 42 2B 36 5E 49 59 H1%SGG9=;B+6^IY
5F0 57 49 23 2B 24 0A 2B 48 54 35 2F 2A 59 2F 3D 28 WI#+$?+HT5/*Y/=(
600 52 5E 30 37 3E 47 22 22 5A 22 20 45 56 36 58 30 R^07G""Z" EV6X0
610 39 3F 3C 4E 58 35 42 58 2E 5B 35 21 39 5A 3C 20 9?NX5BX.[5!9Z
620 3A 21 2F 4B 4F 52 3C 5C 4F 2C 50 52 49 43 49 25 :!/KOR\O,PRICI%
630 3F 20 52 5A 53 4C 0A 4C 46 39 4F 2C 53 2C 33 2C ? RZSL?LF9O,S,3,
640 3C 37 3D 51 54 23 36 5C 45 25 4F 2E 29 41 4A 26 7=QT#6\E%O.)AJ&
650 4C 4E 4A 56 20 29 26 2A 54 23 5A 4A 5F 4A 51 5E LNJV )&*T#ZJ_JQ^
660 54 22 51 2B 22 3E 4B 2A 24 4C 40 54 4B 21 22 41 T"Q+"K*$L@TK!"A
670 3D 4F 29 35 59 5E 5F 0A 3F 45 5B 2C 26 43 43 2E =O)5Y^_??E[,&CC.
680 46 21 3F 37 59 50 57 41 54 59 5A 40 54 44 4C 23 F!?7YPWATYZ@TDL#
690 3B 31 28 3A 5C 4A 3F 38 48 45 21 53 3D 4B 21 4B ;1(:\J?8HE!S=K!K

=== end of quote ====

... There is one other subtlety in that the splitting
calculations roll the spectrum, ...


Do You means by this, that SETI have encrypt the DATA ?

... but people have solved that one as well
by trying test data.


:-)

I splitt up You message here.

Thank You very much for Your help.


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

Win (vind) 1000 Danish Kr. (around 140 US $), jump ...
2233

File-number:
2341


  #6  
Old May 27th 04, 05:30 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


[ ... ]
I don't understand Your DATA i file *work_unit.sah*


You are not particularly supposed to, although they havn't taken any
steps to obfuscate it. They don't want people doing their own
analysis and either making a mistake in the analysis process and making
false claims of a detection, or even making a real detection and
getting to the press before them (the former being much more likely).


I understand :-)

That's crazy!

2 brains can think MORE smart than just óne, and what about 6.000 millions ?

However, the parameter part is fairly obvious and the uuencode type level
of the encoding can easily be stripped. ...


:-)

... It is clear from the parameters
that the data is a sequence of complex numbers containing ...


What do You exactly mean by this ? - Which kind of parameters ?

Are You talk'ing about the fictiv Ra and Dec ?
(example: 40 hr ... 28 deg )

... only the sign
bit for each of the real and imaginary parts; ...


Does this means, that the amplitude (the level) still is there ?

... that part can easily be
resolved by a few experiments to determine the sequence of the data and
how it is interleaved.


Can You explain this for me ?

I have a lille DATA-string here, downloaded from SETI, see ...

2337

(use Courier New to read)

=== start of quote ===
....
coord22= 2452697.36447 26.489 -0.78
end_seti_header
530 65 72 0A 4E 35 48 21 48 44 56 58 49 53 22 24 41 er?N5H!HDVXIS"$A
540 22 45 4F 4B 37 3B 56 4E 2C 4F 37 52 59 23 3C 35 "EOK7;VN,O7RY#5
550 2E 3E 35 5A 34 22 23 3F 2D 42 24 37 20 23 5B 5F .5Z4"#?-B$7 #[_
560 25 36 3E 4E 3F 3A 26 41 47 2A 26 33 5D 4E 20 2E %6N?:&AG*&3]N .
570 22 3A 55 0A 2F 37 3B 5E 5C 4B 5E 37 52 5F 54 28 ":U?/7;^\K^7R_T(
580 28 3A 5B 2E 23 21 4C 2A 48 5B 2F 20 20 21 22 4C (:[.#!L*H[/ !"L
590 43 37 4F 29 5F 4F 36 26 31 44 28 48 20 56 43 2B C7O)_O6&1D(H VC+
5A0 54 51 2A 51 2A 54 48 2D 25 24 3B 53 3B 31 28 43 TQ*Q*TH-%$;S;1(C
5B0 55 4C 26 28 0A 23 49 52 42 33 41 36 20 47 4D 41 UL&(?#IRB3A6 GMA
5C0 3E 3C 4F 36 2E 44 45 25 5C 3C 45 24 46 29 3F 4C O6.DE%\E$F)?L
5D0 27 25 42 50 26 41 52 5A 2A 4E 31 2F 56 4F 42 3E '%BP&ARZ*N1/VOB
5E0 48 31 25 53 47 3E 47 39 3D 3B 42 2B 36 5E 49 59 H1%SGG9=;B+6^IY
5F0 57 49 23 2B 24 0A 2B 48 54 35 2F 2A 59 2F 3D 28 WI#+$?+HT5/*Y/=(
600 52 5E 30 37 3E 47 22 22 5A 22 20 45 56 36 58 30 R^07G""Z" EV6X0
610 39 3F 3C 4E 58 35 42 58 2E 5B 35 21 39 5A 3C 20 9?NX5BX.[5!9Z
620 3A 21 2F 4B 4F 52 3C 5C 4F 2C 50 52 49 43 49 25 :!/KOR\O,PRICI%
630 3F 20 52 5A 53 4C 0A 4C 46 39 4F 2C 53 2C 33 2C ? RZSL?LF9O,S,3,
640 3C 37 3D 51 54 23 36 5C 45 25 4F 2E 29 41 4A 26 7=QT#6\E%O.)AJ&
650 4C 4E 4A 56 20 29 26 2A 54 23 5A 4A 5F 4A 51 5E LNJV )&*T#ZJ_JQ^
660 54 22 51 2B 22 3E 4B 2A 24 4C 40 54 4B 21 22 41 T"Q+"K*$L@TK!"A
670 3D 4F 29 35 59 5E 5F 0A 3F 45 5B 2C 26 43 43 2E =O)5Y^_??E[,&CC.
680 46 21 3F 37 59 50 57 41 54 59 5A 40 54 44 4C 23 F!?7YPWATYZ@TDL#
690 3B 31 28 3A 5C 4A 3F 38 48 45 21 53 3D 4B 21 4B ;1(:\J?8HE!S=K!K

=== end of quote ====

... There is one other subtlety in that the splitting
calculations roll the spectrum, ...


Do You means by this, that SETI have encrypt the DATA ?

... but people have solved that one as well
by trying test data.


:-)

I splitt up You message here.

Thank You very much for Your help.


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

Win (vind) 1000 Danish Kr. (around 140 US $), jump ...
2233

File-number:
2341


  #7  
Old May 27th 04, 05:30 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


[ ... ]
and therefore I have NO chance to compare with own downloads from the
Univers (I have NOT make them yet, but I wish to do it)


S@H 1 work units are only suitable for antennas with the same beam width
as Arecibo, although BOINC provides additional parameters to remove
that restriction. A lot of the frequency resolution will be wasted as
well, as the frequency stability of amateur equipment is one to two
orders of magnitude worse than that for which S@H is optimised; that will
mean that an awful lot of time will be wasted processing 128K FFTs on
data that might only support 4K FFTs, unless you completely fake the
time scales of the data, in which case you will end up wasting
time processing chirp rates that are unreasonably large, will not be
using the full beamwidth in drift scan mode and will require a much
larger receiver bandwidth.


My thought was this:

Start up looking at a known X-source, and then compare with DATA from
Arecibo and by this find out how good my own system is :-)

Can we get anything important at all ?

In the FUTURE people on Earth will understand, that it is important, we
use


The SETI League has been doing this for the best part of a decade
(http://www.setileague.org). ...


I'm GLAD to hear this :-)

... Note that there are still very few active
stations and that is with a lower technical specification than you
are assuming.


I understand. Well - but it's still better that nothing :-)

a lot of small radio-telescopes, so that we can focus on many objects on
the


Focussing on many objects at the same can also be done using relatively
compact phased arrays, e.g. the Allen telescope.


Sorry - I misunderstand You now!

Do You mean by this, that You do NOT use a parabol but a parabel.

Then the noise-signal will be greather, but - of course - *if* the ET-signal
is a BIG one, we will get it :-)

What I was talking about, is this:

1. group is watching Galaxic Longitude 0° and Latitude 0° (the Center)
2. group is watching Gal. Lon 1° and Lat 0°
3. group is watching Gal. Lon 359° and Lat 0°
4. group is watching the center of M31
.... (and so on) ...

(apropos low noise-signal)

sky at the same time and for a long periode (more than a week, I think).


That requires steerable antennas. Most people doing amateur SETI can
only afford, or only live with the neighbours, by using fixed antennas.


Yes, of course, but ...

If You are looking for a long time at the same position, You do not have to
use more than a parabol on a wheel :-)

Very simple, just a wheel.
(equatorial suspension)

You know ... like a astronomical telescope.

A little step-motor can turn the wheel round, 1 rotation each day.

And then You can watch Your position for a long time :-)

Expensive ?

No, I don't think so. Not if we build a lot of them.

Because you have to do non-coherent averaging of the signal
above about 10 seconds, with a stable receiver and more like above 0.1s,
with an amateur system, and taking into account the relative sizes of the
antennas, you will need to observe for over a day to match 13 seconds
of Arecibo time. That means that the first order chirp (second order
Doppler) corrections in the client will be totally inadequate.


I think, I understand You, but ... I think You MISUNDERSTOOD me.

I don't believe, we can expect a signal from Life-2 out there ESPECIALLY for
us, because the Universe is to big.

Therefore we MUST what untill it is our direction on their Radio-lighthouse.
(2 weeks maybe)

see ...
0412
(use http://www.google.dk/grphp )

In fact, it works out that small antenna SETI is best for short duration
signals, ...


Precisely!

I expect a "download" like this:

(Update 3 from file 0412)
0464

=== start of quote ===

Update 3:

1 bit/day = 5104 days = 13,97 years
1 bit/week = 35728 days = 97,82 years

This will take too long time!

Bit-compression:
-----------------

Suggest

bit 1 = + 001 minute (0h01m00s)
bit 2 = + 002 minute (0h02m00s)
bit 3 = + 004 minute (0h04m00s)
bit 4 = + 008 minute (0h08m00s)
bit 5 = + 016 minute (0h16m00s)
bit 6 = + 032 minute (0h32m00s)
bit 7 = + 064 minute (1h04m00s)
bit 8 = + 128 minute (2h08m00s)

The result wil then be:
1 byte/day = 638 days = 1,75 years
1 byte/week = 4466 days = 13,97 years

2 years !!! - That's fine - very good !!!

-

By this we will get (which also will help to understand the code):

Input "The Song of the Bride", (5104 bits)

(an time-example):

y=year
d=day
h=hour
m=minute
s=second

START:
Time=0000y000d00h00m00s000 - 0001 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y000d00h00m10s000 - 0002 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y000d00h00m31s416 - 0003 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 001 (out of 638 bytes)
10000000 = 1 (out of 256 possible, 0-255)
Time=0000y001d00h01m00s000 - 0004 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y001d00h01m10s000 - 0005 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y001d00h01m31s416 - 0006 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 002
01000000 = 2
Time=0000y002d00h02m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y002d00h02m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y002d00h02m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 003
11000000 = 3
Time=0000y003d00h03m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y003d00h03m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y003d00h03m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 004
00100000 = 4
Time=0000y004d00h04m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y004d00h04m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y004d00h04m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 005
10100000 = 5
Time=0000y005d00h05m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y005d00h05m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y005d00h05m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 006
01100000 = 6
Time=0000y006d00h06m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y006d00h06m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y006d00h06m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 007
11100000 = 7
Time=0000y007d00h07m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y007d00h07m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y007d00h07m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 008
00000000 = 0
Time=0000y008d00h00m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y008d00h00m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y008d00h00m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

(on this position they will be enable to understand the byte-syntax)

=== end of quote ====


Hope You can understand, what I'm talking about, David :-)

It's just a suggest.

If it works, why should Life-2 NOT use it ?


... as long duration signals will stay around to be found by the
much more sensitive large antennas. The real advantage of small antennas
is that a small number of them can, together, simultaneously cover the
whole sky, alowing the detection of short duration signals.


May I misunderstood You :-(

Here in Denmark we can NOT see around the Center of our Galaxy, ...


Note that there is a European Radio Astronomy Society (ERAC).


:-)

more stars, MORE (hypothetic) Life-2.


Using large dishes is the way to get more stars. The range scales with
diameter and volume with the cube, meaning n times diameter allows you
to search n^3 stars.


You misunderstood me (I think)

I was talking about the "Network"

se ...

(Update 1 and 2 from file 0412)
0452

Especially for small dishes, the range limits mean that there is unlikely
to be much benefit in aiming within the galactic plane. Any contact
which is far enough out for spherical symmettry to have broken down will
have a very long round trip time. Most of the benefit that is associated
with the galactic centre would apply to any direction in the galactic
plane, but even straight out of the plane takes you to over 1000 years
round trip time.


(My english is bad, well it dosn't matter)

Group 1 can watch frequency 1,42000 GHz.
Group 2 can watch frequency 1,42001 GHz


In practice, some people will have receivers that have much wider pass
bands.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that large enough numbers of
people are interested to be able to form multiple groups.


Good :-)

("Hello"-signal time-interval perhaps every 2 weeks)


Small dish SETI is only likely to produce comparable detection rates to
big dish SETI (approximately zero in 20 years).


May I ask You for a request ?

Please read file ...

0412

.... and then You will understand, why I think 2 week i enougth

(maybe I got it wrong, but ...)

Arecibo:
305m - 73.062 m^2


The effective diameter is rather less (about 100m for the line feed on
the carriage house and up to 200m for the Gregorian).


Okay.

Antenna signal-minimum:
1*10^-23 Watt / m^2 * 73.062 m^2 = 7,3*10^19 Watt


Depends on detection thresholds and integration time. Your estimate
is rather pessimistic. See below.

Little-Radio-reflector:
2m - 3,14 m^2


Typical amateur SETI is 3 or 4m, ex C-Band TVRO (in the USA). ERAC claims
to be able to source dishes in Europe.


:-)

7,3*10^19 Watt / 3,14 m^2 = 2,3*10^19 Watt/m^2


This is a rather round about way of doing things. The threshold power,
as described in the FAQ, is kT per Hertz, where the bandwidth for Arecibo
is about 100 times better than a typical amateur system, and the system
noise
is likely to be less as well. The SERENDIP system has an overall T of
about 45K. About 12K of this is extrasterrestial, so irreducible.

You can't use this as the actual threshold, but must multiply it by a
factor to produce an acceptable false positive rate.


Okay (I was just trying to find out, how good it could work).

... That's 8 for Phoenix and 22
for S@H; S@H is larger because of the large number of different parameters
it tries.

k is 1.38066...E-23 J/K.

So the noise is about 3E-23 W in 0.05Hz. Using an 8 times threshold
(basically assumes signal is source chirp compensated) it's about 2.4E-22.


Oh - NOW I understand a little about, what You are talking about.

IF the signal is there for 8 times.

So my "plan", see ...

(Update 3 from file 0412)
0464

.... will NOT work in pratice ?

Multiplying by the capture area and using a SERENDIP type 100m radius,
gives about 3E-26 W/m^2 in 0.05Hz.

Such kind of antenna, You use, must be very expensive!


A cheap one (around 200 US $) - how good is it ?
(1*10^10 Watt ?)


The antenna won't make much difference, once you have a big enough
area (1m is probably too small for 1.4GHz as it's only five wavelengths
across). What matters is the low noise amplifier, ...


Yes, of course :-)

... which should be around
US$100 ...


GLAD to hear this :-)

... to get well within an order of magnitude of the Arecibo figure,
and the stability of the receiver, and most people seem to assume 10Hz
in the short term. ...


Are You talking about a message inside the 1,42 GHz. ?
(fx music of Mozart, or news)

I *expect* no such kind of message.

I will only look after 3 pulse at 1,42 GHx, the "Hello"-signal:

1.
Time = 0 ............ (1. impulse)
Time = 1 ............ (2. impulse)
Time = Phi (22/7) (3. impulse)

Therefore my antenna maybe don't have to be a very good one.
(some in regrad to my computer-program)

I *expect*, that Life-2 will send me a clear message, easy to find :-)

(just "Hello", Here I am, I'm alive, 22/7 can only intelligent life find
out)

Can such kind of signal be received by a simple antenna ?

... Being pessimistic on the noise, the threshold power
will be about 400 times worse, so 1E-19 W in 10 Hz.

You'll need to under illuminate the dish, to avoid looking at the hot
ground, so maybe use 0.5 * pi. That gives about 6E-20 W/m^2 in 10 Hz.


How much will that give in W/m^2 in 1,42 GHz ?

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^10 Watt ?)


If you are talking about effective isotropic power (EIRP) that is not
big in a SETI context. Arecibo can do over 1E13 Watts.


I did a mistake!

I should have wrote:

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^-10 Watt ?)
(like 1E-10 W ?)

But I'm glad for this mistake, because now I know that Life-2 can be in able
to send out for more that 1E13 Watt :-)

A globe in a sun-system like ours (in worst care) have an signal-input at
....

1E13 / (1 AE^2 * Pi) = 1,4E-10 W/m^2

.... No, a parabol at only 1 meter is not enougth :-(

... However, the
answer is that you are many orders of magnitude below the 10 second
integration detection threshold, even from the nearest star, at that
level. If you go to a four metre dish, ...


Yes, I know, right now :-)

... get the receiver stable to
1 Hz, and average over 200 seconds, you begin to achieve a few 10s of
light year range (see the FAQ for details).


I still don't understand all this talking about Hertz inside the 1,42 GHz.

Do I need to take matter of this in my case ?

If it can, I find it important, that You create a program we all can
understand and use together to synchronization our positions.


Who is you. Berkeley SSL are probably not even reading the thread, and
they have no mandate to fund your research. ...


But *You* did it, and thank You for it :-)

... There are a number of
pieces of software, e.g. SETI-Fox, for processing amateur SETI inputs,
available on the web.


Can You give me a web-side ?

[ ... ]
PPS. I hope all the arithmetic is right!


I hope so :-)

-

Another thing:

There was maybe a "Hello"-signal in 1973 - as far as I know (Discovery
Channal). I came from a position near the Galaxy Center. Do You know the
exactly position ? ... :-)

Thank You very much for Your help.


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

Win (vind) 1000 Danish Kr. (around 140 US $), jump ...
2233

File-number:
2342


  #8  
Old May 27th 04, 05:30 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


[ ... ]
and therefore I have NO chance to compare with own downloads from the
Univers (I have NOT make them yet, but I wish to do it)


S@H 1 work units are only suitable for antennas with the same beam width
as Arecibo, although BOINC provides additional parameters to remove
that restriction. A lot of the frequency resolution will be wasted as
well, as the frequency stability of amateur equipment is one to two
orders of magnitude worse than that for which S@H is optimised; that will
mean that an awful lot of time will be wasted processing 128K FFTs on
data that might only support 4K FFTs, unless you completely fake the
time scales of the data, in which case you will end up wasting
time processing chirp rates that are unreasonably large, will not be
using the full beamwidth in drift scan mode and will require a much
larger receiver bandwidth.


My thought was this:

Start up looking at a known X-source, and then compare with DATA from
Arecibo and by this find out how good my own system is :-)

Can we get anything important at all ?

In the FUTURE people on Earth will understand, that it is important, we
use


The SETI League has been doing this for the best part of a decade
(http://www.setileague.org). ...


I'm GLAD to hear this :-)

... Note that there are still very few active
stations and that is with a lower technical specification than you
are assuming.


I understand. Well - but it's still better that nothing :-)

a lot of small radio-telescopes, so that we can focus on many objects on
the


Focussing on many objects at the same can also be done using relatively
compact phased arrays, e.g. the Allen telescope.


Sorry - I misunderstand You now!

Do You mean by this, that You do NOT use a parabol but a parabel.

Then the noise-signal will be greather, but - of course - *if* the ET-signal
is a BIG one, we will get it :-)

What I was talking about, is this:

1. group is watching Galaxic Longitude 0° and Latitude 0° (the Center)
2. group is watching Gal. Lon 1° and Lat 0°
3. group is watching Gal. Lon 359° and Lat 0°
4. group is watching the center of M31
.... (and so on) ...

(apropos low noise-signal)

sky at the same time and for a long periode (more than a week, I think).


That requires steerable antennas. Most people doing amateur SETI can
only afford, or only live with the neighbours, by using fixed antennas.


Yes, of course, but ...

If You are looking for a long time at the same position, You do not have to
use more than a parabol on a wheel :-)

Very simple, just a wheel.
(equatorial suspension)

You know ... like a astronomical telescope.

A little step-motor can turn the wheel round, 1 rotation each day.

And then You can watch Your position for a long time :-)

Expensive ?

No, I don't think so. Not if we build a lot of them.

Because you have to do non-coherent averaging of the signal
above about 10 seconds, with a stable receiver and more like above 0.1s,
with an amateur system, and taking into account the relative sizes of the
antennas, you will need to observe for over a day to match 13 seconds
of Arecibo time. That means that the first order chirp (second order
Doppler) corrections in the client will be totally inadequate.


I think, I understand You, but ... I think You MISUNDERSTOOD me.

I don't believe, we can expect a signal from Life-2 out there ESPECIALLY for
us, because the Universe is to big.

Therefore we MUST what untill it is our direction on their Radio-lighthouse.
(2 weeks maybe)

see ...
0412
(use http://www.google.dk/grphp )

In fact, it works out that small antenna SETI is best for short duration
signals, ...


Precisely!

I expect a "download" like this:

(Update 3 from file 0412)
0464

=== start of quote ===

Update 3:

1 bit/day = 5104 days = 13,97 years
1 bit/week = 35728 days = 97,82 years

This will take too long time!

Bit-compression:
-----------------

Suggest

bit 1 = + 001 minute (0h01m00s)
bit 2 = + 002 minute (0h02m00s)
bit 3 = + 004 minute (0h04m00s)
bit 4 = + 008 minute (0h08m00s)
bit 5 = + 016 minute (0h16m00s)
bit 6 = + 032 minute (0h32m00s)
bit 7 = + 064 minute (1h04m00s)
bit 8 = + 128 minute (2h08m00s)

The result wil then be:
1 byte/day = 638 days = 1,75 years
1 byte/week = 4466 days = 13,97 years

2 years !!! - That's fine - very good !!!

-

By this we will get (which also will help to understand the code):

Input "The Song of the Bride", (5104 bits)

(an time-example):

y=year
d=day
h=hour
m=minute
s=second

START:
Time=0000y000d00h00m00s000 - 0001 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y000d00h00m10s000 - 0002 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y000d00h00m31s416 - 0003 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 001 (out of 638 bytes)
10000000 = 1 (out of 256 possible, 0-255)
Time=0000y001d00h01m00s000 - 0004 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y001d00h01m10s000 - 0005 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y001d00h01m31s416 - 0006 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 002
01000000 = 2
Time=0000y002d00h02m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y002d00h02m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y002d00h02m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 003
11000000 = 3
Time=0000y003d00h03m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y003d00h03m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y003d00h03m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 004
00100000 = 4
Time=0000y004d00h04m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y004d00h04m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y004d00h04m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 005
10100000 = 5
Time=0000y005d00h05m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y005d00h05m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y005d00h05m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 006
01100000 = 6
Time=0000y006d00h06m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y006d00h06m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y006d00h06m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 007
11100000 = 7
Time=0000y007d00h07m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y007d00h07m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y007d00h07m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

Byte 008
00000000 = 0
Time=0000y008d00h00m00s000 - 0000 inpulse - 0
Time=0000y008d00h00m10s000 - 0000 inpulse - 1
Time=0000y008d00h00m31s416 - 0000 inpulse - Phi (22/7)

(on this position they will be enable to understand the byte-syntax)

=== end of quote ====


Hope You can understand, what I'm talking about, David :-)

It's just a suggest.

If it works, why should Life-2 NOT use it ?


... as long duration signals will stay around to be found by the
much more sensitive large antennas. The real advantage of small antennas
is that a small number of them can, together, simultaneously cover the
whole sky, alowing the detection of short duration signals.


May I misunderstood You :-(

Here in Denmark we can NOT see around the Center of our Galaxy, ...


Note that there is a European Radio Astronomy Society (ERAC).


:-)

more stars, MORE (hypothetic) Life-2.


Using large dishes is the way to get more stars. The range scales with
diameter and volume with the cube, meaning n times diameter allows you
to search n^3 stars.


You misunderstood me (I think)

I was talking about the "Network"

se ...

(Update 1 and 2 from file 0412)
0452

Especially for small dishes, the range limits mean that there is unlikely
to be much benefit in aiming within the galactic plane. Any contact
which is far enough out for spherical symmettry to have broken down will
have a very long round trip time. Most of the benefit that is associated
with the galactic centre would apply to any direction in the galactic
plane, but even straight out of the plane takes you to over 1000 years
round trip time.


(My english is bad, well it dosn't matter)

Group 1 can watch frequency 1,42000 GHz.
Group 2 can watch frequency 1,42001 GHz


In practice, some people will have receivers that have much wider pass
bands.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that large enough numbers of
people are interested to be able to form multiple groups.


Good :-)

("Hello"-signal time-interval perhaps every 2 weeks)


Small dish SETI is only likely to produce comparable detection rates to
big dish SETI (approximately zero in 20 years).


May I ask You for a request ?

Please read file ...

0412

.... and then You will understand, why I think 2 week i enougth

(maybe I got it wrong, but ...)

Arecibo:
305m - 73.062 m^2


The effective diameter is rather less (about 100m for the line feed on
the carriage house and up to 200m for the Gregorian).


Okay.

Antenna signal-minimum:
1*10^-23 Watt / m^2 * 73.062 m^2 = 7,3*10^19 Watt


Depends on detection thresholds and integration time. Your estimate
is rather pessimistic. See below.

Little-Radio-reflector:
2m - 3,14 m^2


Typical amateur SETI is 3 or 4m, ex C-Band TVRO (in the USA). ERAC claims
to be able to source dishes in Europe.


:-)

7,3*10^19 Watt / 3,14 m^2 = 2,3*10^19 Watt/m^2


This is a rather round about way of doing things. The threshold power,
as described in the FAQ, is kT per Hertz, where the bandwidth for Arecibo
is about 100 times better than a typical amateur system, and the system
noise
is likely to be less as well. The SERENDIP system has an overall T of
about 45K. About 12K of this is extrasterrestial, so irreducible.

You can't use this as the actual threshold, but must multiply it by a
factor to produce an acceptable false positive rate.


Okay (I was just trying to find out, how good it could work).

... That's 8 for Phoenix and 22
for S@H; S@H is larger because of the large number of different parameters
it tries.

k is 1.38066...E-23 J/K.

So the noise is about 3E-23 W in 0.05Hz. Using an 8 times threshold
(basically assumes signal is source chirp compensated) it's about 2.4E-22.


Oh - NOW I understand a little about, what You are talking about.

IF the signal is there for 8 times.

So my "plan", see ...

(Update 3 from file 0412)
0464

.... will NOT work in pratice ?

Multiplying by the capture area and using a SERENDIP type 100m radius,
gives about 3E-26 W/m^2 in 0.05Hz.

Such kind of antenna, You use, must be very expensive!


A cheap one (around 200 US $) - how good is it ?
(1*10^10 Watt ?)


The antenna won't make much difference, once you have a big enough
area (1m is probably too small for 1.4GHz as it's only five wavelengths
across). What matters is the low noise amplifier, ...


Yes, of course :-)

... which should be around
US$100 ...


GLAD to hear this :-)

... to get well within an order of magnitude of the Arecibo figure,
and the stability of the receiver, and most people seem to assume 10Hz
in the short term. ...


Are You talking about a message inside the 1,42 GHz. ?
(fx music of Mozart, or news)

I *expect* no such kind of message.

I will only look after 3 pulse at 1,42 GHx, the "Hello"-signal:

1.
Time = 0 ............ (1. impulse)
Time = 1 ............ (2. impulse)
Time = Phi (22/7) (3. impulse)

Therefore my antenna maybe don't have to be a very good one.
(some in regrad to my computer-program)

I *expect*, that Life-2 will send me a clear message, easy to find :-)

(just "Hello", Here I am, I'm alive, 22/7 can only intelligent life find
out)

Can such kind of signal be received by a simple antenna ?

... Being pessimistic on the noise, the threshold power
will be about 400 times worse, so 1E-19 W in 10 Hz.

You'll need to under illuminate the dish, to avoid looking at the hot
ground, so maybe use 0.5 * pi. That gives about 6E-20 W/m^2 in 10 Hz.


How much will that give in W/m^2 in 1,42 GHz ?

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^10 Watt ?)


If you are talking about effective isotropic power (EIRP) that is not
big in a SETI context. Arecibo can do over 1E13 Watts.


I did a mistake!

I should have wrote:

Can a little radio-telescope be inable to get contact with big-signals ?
(like 1*10^-10 Watt ?)
(like 1E-10 W ?)

But I'm glad for this mistake, because now I know that Life-2 can be in able
to send out for more that 1E13 Watt :-)

A globe in a sun-system like ours (in worst care) have an signal-input at
....

1E13 / (1 AE^2 * Pi) = 1,4E-10 W/m^2

.... No, a parabol at only 1 meter is not enougth :-(

... However, the
answer is that you are many orders of magnitude below the 10 second
integration detection threshold, even from the nearest star, at that
level. If you go to a four metre dish, ...


Yes, I know, right now :-)

... get the receiver stable to
1 Hz, and average over 200 seconds, you begin to achieve a few 10s of
light year range (see the FAQ for details).


I still don't understand all this talking about Hertz inside the 1,42 GHz.

Do I need to take matter of this in my case ?

If it can, I find it important, that You create a program we all can
understand and use together to synchronization our positions.


Who is you. Berkeley SSL are probably not even reading the thread, and
they have no mandate to fund your research. ...


But *You* did it, and thank You for it :-)

... There are a number of
pieces of software, e.g. SETI-Fox, for processing amateur SETI inputs,
available on the web.


Can You give me a web-side ?

[ ... ]
PPS. I hope all the arithmetic is right!


I hope so :-)

-

Another thing:

There was maybe a "Hello"-signal in 1973 - as far as I know (Discovery
Channal). I came from a position near the Galaxy Center. Do You know the
exactly position ? ... :-)

Thank You very much for Your help.


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

Win (vind) 1000 Danish Kr. (around 140 US $), jump ...
2233

File-number:
2342


  #9  
Old May 27th 04, 05:59 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


In regard to my question ...

2342

=== start of quote ===

There was maybe a "Hello"-signal in 1973 - as far as I know (Discovery
Channal). I came from a position near the Galaxy Center. Do You know the
exactly position ? ... :-)

=== end of quote ====



.... I have a little crazy thinking:

Can You imagine we receives a message from someone in M31 ?

The delay will be 2,2 mill. years, but they will be in able to tell us,
what's going on in our Galaxy for 2,2 mill, years ago (total delay 4,4 mill.
years).

For instance:

"You have a neighbour in Your area; look over there. The Postions is
xxx.

:-)


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

Win (vind) 1000 Danish Kr. (around 140 US $), jump ...
2233

File-number:
2343


  #10  
Old May 27th 04, 05:59 AM
Jesus loves you
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Request to SETI - Was: Thank You From SETI

"David Woolley" skrev


In regard to my question ...

2342

=== start of quote ===

There was maybe a "Hello"-signal in 1973 - as far as I know (Discovery
Channal). I came from a position near the Galaxy Center. Do You know the
exactly position ? ... :-)

=== end of quote ====



.... I have a little crazy thinking:

Can You imagine we receives a message from someone in M31 ?

The delay will be 2,2 mill. years, but they will be in able to tell us,
what's going on in our Galaxy for 2,2 mill, years ago (total delay 4,4 mill.
years).

For instance:

"You have a neighbour in Your area; look over there. The Postions is
xxx.

:-)


With kind regards,
Mogens Kall
The servant of Michael

Win (vind) 1000 Danish Kr. (around 140 US $), jump ...
2233

File-number:
2343


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How smart are SETI@homers? Andrew Nowicki SETI 450 June 3rd 04 01:11 AM
How smart are SETI@homers? Andrew Nowicki Policy 212 June 3rd 04 01:02 AM
seti command line client 3.08 crashes Björn Schmitt SETI 0 December 21st 03 09:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.