In infinite wisdom Bjorn Damm answered:

"P. Backus" <pbackus@seti.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:4e30f668.0405060914.34b1d3f@posting.google.com...

"Bjorn Damm" <bjornd@mail.invalid> wrote in message

news:<Z9jmc.11732$EV2.97674@amstwist00>...

"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:T1083793861@djwhome.demon.co.uk...

The Allen array is claimed to have the ability to detect the

equivalent of

our analogue TV carriers from local stars.  (I suspect this is with
a long observation time.)

The analogue TV transmitters will 'soon' be replaced by digital. The

chance

of ET having an analogue TV-transmitter is aproximatly zero.

Nobody assumes ET will have analog TV.  TV carriers are cited as an
example of a strong narrow signal.  That is all.

The statement contains an unspoken question. How can we expect to receive a
signal if we are not transmitting any?

What does one have to do with the other?

But by this rational, no one *will* be transmitting and SETI is a waste
of time and resources (unless it's your employment).

There has been one message sent from
Arecibo towards one star cluster. There has also been attempts to transmit
signals on satellite uplinks (I don't know but I guess they don't contain
enuf power to be detected).

Err, aren't satellite uplinks designed for transmitting signals? I'd
tend to think that they do so full time, all the time.

There also are 'random' pointings by the
interplanetary radar at Arecibo that could be detected by ET. But could the
identify them as originating from an intelligent being or do they have to
classify them as a phenomenon.

I think it's safe to assume that ET has a much better detection capability
than we.

Why?

Wouldn't it be more efficient to transmit a signal.

Than to receive one? Not at all, it takes energy to transmit, receiving
is much simpler and much less costly.

Assuming we will reach our peak detecting capability in 100 years,

Why?

transmission would be
the most efficient method of establishing a communication if the star is
withing a range of 50 ly.

I don't connect the first part "peak detecting capability" with the
second part "transmission would be the most efficient method" at all.

Can you explain?

And I repeat my question: How can we expect to receive a signal if we are
not transmitting any?

So do you assert that if we transmit, we can expect to receive?

Nonetheless, if you are right, then SETI is a waste of time. Perhaps
you'd better inform the seti@home folks of this. They should be
transmitting, right?

Rich

On the other hand, I don't think the ATA will have that sensitivity.