"Rich" <someone@somewhere.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:40A27B7F.3070806@somewhere.com...

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?

The CW of the Analogue TV transmitters is one of the stronger narrowband
signals we are currently transmitting.
OTOH, according to SETI-FAQ the CW is not detectable at interstellar
distansces (with the equippment we have) so it really doesn't matter.

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?

See below.

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?

See below.

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?

Our computer speeds double every one and a half years or so. So in 15 years
they will be 1000 times faster and will able to analyze a 1000 times more
frequencys.
(or 1000 times more time of the same amount of frequencys). At some point
this development of faster and faster computers will stop. I don't know
when. The 100 years was just a asumption.

I also assume that ET already has the fastest possible computers. As a
conclusion of these assumptions It is, at this moment, a 1000 or mabee a
million times easier for ET to find our signals than it is for us to find
theirs.