... a bigger question is: does polarization carry any additional information?

There are practical reasons for choosing a polarization -- for example, circular polarization is really good if you are trying to send (or receive) signals from a spinning satellite (big expensive satellites are stabilized, but inexpensive small satellites are not).

And for that reason, if I were to radiate a beacon signal, I would use circular polarisation so that the signal is kept out of any natural sourced noise and to allow reception by a spacecraft antenna at any orientation.

If we took the "Star Trek" view and aligned everything to the galactic plane then linear polarisations could be used. Then again, are there any features of space that rotate/twist the polarisation plane? (I don't know of any other than star or planet magnetic fields, but...)

... and generally speaking, for terrestrial paths, horizontal polarization is quieter. Vertical polarization is better for mobile-to-mobile and base-to-mobile for purely practical reasons.

I wonder how you could have an circular polarised isotropic radiator?... :-(

Or could you have a 'phased array' for circular polarisation. Phew, that would be an interesting headache!

Or?...

...I don't see how anything like that would tell us any more about ET. Maybe a real ET researcher might have a comment....

It would say that this 'ere signal is deliberately artifical and we are trying to maximise how easily it can be received by you...

That extra 3dB over a misaligned linear polarised signal equates to a greatly increased volume of search space! (If we could recieve it with a dedicated circular polarise antenna. Or can the two linear polarised antenna signals be phased/added for zero loss?)


Keep searchin',
Martin

If you use two receive antenna where the received signals are anti-phase then combining techniques can give a theoretical 6dB improvement in signal to noise ratio.

Andy

If you use two receive antenna where the received signals are anti-phase then combining techniques can give a theoretical 6dB improvement in signal to noise ratio.

Indeed yes for signals that are deliberately transmitted that way with the same antenna arrangement. That would certainly prove whatever is recieved to be a non-natural transmission! (However, would that not actually be some sort of circular polarisation in any case?)

... Now, is there any mileage to be had by pre-processing the recorded signal data before the splitters to remove "common mode" noise betwen crossed polarisations and across all polarisations in a similar way to what is being done to remove the instrument interference at the moment?...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... a bigger question is: does polarization carry any additional information?

There are practical reasons for choosing a polarization -- for example, circular polarization is really good if you are trying to send (or receive) signals from a spinning satellite (big expensive satellites are stabilized, but inexpensive small satellites are not).

And for that reason, if I were to radiate a beacon signal, I would use circular polarisation so that the signal is kept out of any natural sourced noise and to allow reception by a spacecraft antenna at any orientation.

If we took the "Star Trek" view and aligned everything to the galactic plane then linear polarisations could be used. Then again, are there any features of space that rotate/twist the polarisation plane? (I don't know of any other than star or planet magnetic fields, but...)

... and generally speaking, for terrestrial paths, horizontal polarization is quieter. Vertical polarization is better for mobile-to-mobile and base-to-mobile for purely practical reasons.

I wonder how you could have an circular polarised isotropic radiator?... :-(

Or could you have a 'phased array' for circular polarisation. Phew, that would be an interesting headache!

Or?...

...I don't see how anything like that would tell us any more about ET. Maybe a real ET researcher might have a comment....

It would say that this 'ere signal is deliberately artifical and we are trying to maximise how easily it can be received by you...

That extra 3dB over a misaligned linear polarised signal equates to a greatly increased volume of search space! (If we could recieve it with a dedicated circular polarise antenna. Or can the two linear polarised antenna signals be phased/added for zero loss?)


Keep searchin',
Martin

Martin,

There are a couple of ways to get circularly polarized signals, but it's usually done with crossed dipoles (or crossed yagis) fed 90 degrees out of phase.

But my point is that we have three choices:

1) Use linearly polarized antennas at 90 degrees, and accept that circularly polarized signals will be 3db down.

2) Use circularly polarized antennas (left-hand and right-hand) and accept that linear-polarized signals will always be 3db down.

3) Use four antennas (horizontal, vertical, left and right) and pick up a lousy 3db on some signals (and record four times the data, where at least two are probably redundant).

My gut feeling is that #3 is a lot more complexity with very little gain in data collected.

... but that's me.

-- Lynn

---

If you use two receive antenna where the received signals are anti-phase then combining techniques can give a theoretical 6dB improvement in signal to noise ratio.

Andy

Well, maybe closer to 3db than 6db, but there are so many ways to get more antenna gain.

... and for the subject at hand, we're talking about a second dish, not just a second antenna at the feedpoint. I don't know if we have another nearby parabolic valley or the money to build another Arecibo.

Probably easier to just make that dish bigger.

---

Eric,

How's the interference search and fix progressing?

I've seen a comment somewhere saying that the interference is an instrumentation problem rather than external interference pickup by the antenna.

Yet another wild guess: Have you got an impedance missmatch causing reflections on a (long) signal cable?...


Keep searchin',

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The antenna, then, at the focus, is only one, 1/2 or 1/4 wavelength long?

While that isn't 100% true, it's a pretty fair generalization.

Dipoles can be much shorter than 1/2 wavelength. Theoretically, a half-wavelength dipole is ideal, but practically, this turns out to be about 5/8 wavelength. I believe this avoids problems with "standing waves". A dipole of one wavelength just doesn't work. Since there is a sine wave involved, half the antenna would be electrically of the opposite potential to the other half. They would cancel each other out.

If a dipole is physically less than half-wavelength, it is usually "fooled" into behaving as a half-wavelength by the use of a "loading coil". Basically, this is a rheostat (variable resistor) which can be adjusted. When CB users adjust the "SWR" (Standing Wave Ratio) of their antenna, this is what they are doing.

Ned's right... horizontally-polarised radio suffers less from noise, but TV stations not only transmit on the horizontal for that purpose. They also assign specific areas for their broadcast, and directional, horizontal antennae limit the broadcast area. Directional antennae also deliver more power to the desired broadcast area. Having said that, the British Services TV in Germany used vertical polarisation (probably still do) to prevent the civilian population from watching British TV!!!!!

Umm, errr ... A loading coil is not a variable resistor. It is an inductor which makes the antenna "appear" longer than it really is.

Ahhh, cross polarisation won't stop you watching any TV just involves about 20dB loss os signal. And in the real world not even that much.

Who says? 40+ years of experiance ;P

Ahhh, cross polarisation won't stop you watching any TV just involves about 20dB loss os signal. And in the real world not even that much.

Who says? 40+ years of experiance ;P

In a perfect world, cross polarization is an infinite signal loss.

In the real world, there is always some signal that bounced off or bent around something and is no longer horizontally polarized, or for that matter, vertically polarized -- which is why 20db or so is a much more practical number.

---

We tracked it down to a radar system. I'll try to post more info this week.

Eric

Eric,

How's the interference search and fix progressing?

I've seen a comment somewhere saying that the interference is an instrumentation problem rather than external interference pickup by the antenna.

Yet another wild guess: Have you got an impedance missmatch causing reflections on a (long) signal cable?...


Keep searchin',

Regards,
Martin

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

We tracked it down to a radar system. I'll try to post more info this week.

Eric

Do you know which radar system?

---

me@rescam.org

We tracked it down to a radar system. I'll try to post more info this week.

Eric

Do you know which radar system?

Punta Salinas, 6.2 km west of old San Juan. It's operated by the Puerto Rico Air National Guard.

Fortunately the observatory has a system that can tell you when the radar pulses happen, so we can blank those parts of the data stream.

http://www.naic.edu/~phil/rfi/rdr/puntaSalinas/puntaSalinas.html

Eric

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

Like I said over a month ago...

Have you figured out what the pulse repitition interval and the pulse duration is?

Personally, my opinion is any pulse repitition less than 100usecs would or should indicate a pulse doppler radar? Or something with a fairly predictable duty cycle...it doesn't even have to be pulse constant...

Is there a weather radar near by? Perhaps your picking up sidelobes or back lobes getting into the sidelobes of the receiving antenna? Sidelobe poke through or sibelobe of a separate transmitter getting into the sidelobe of the receiver? I am not actually suggesting radar, but even perhaps unshielded equipment nearby?

---

The Punta Salinas website table gives the duration of the pulses, 41.2 and 409.6 microseconds. I didnt check the frequencies of of the occurrences of the pulses; they might be there, too. The frequencies of the signals themselves are just below those of Seti, from about 1.2 to 1.4 GHz.

---

the British Services TV in Germany used vertical polarisation (probably still do) to prevent the civilian population from watching British TV!!!!!

He he. I've been a little slow spotting this one. ;) The intention was to reduce interference with German domestic broadcasts. The organisation which spends a great deal of effort and money on The BBC World Service has no interest in preventing people receiving it's broadcasts. ;)

---

Be lucky

Neil

...The frequencies of the signals themselves are just below those of Seti, from about 1.2 to 1.4 GHz.

Supposedly, the signals are blanked for Arecibo. At 25kW, it doesn't need much band spread or much of a side lobe or even just a geographic reflection to make a real mess of trying to observe the universe!


Anyone nearby with camouflage paint, a hacksaw, some wire cutters, and?...

:-O



So how does that problem get fixed other than suffering degraded observations?

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

We tracked it down to a radar system...

Do you know which radar system?

Got yer camouflage paint and fatigues ready?...

;-O

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

We tracked it down to a radar system...

Do you know which radar system?

Got yer camouflage paint and fatigues ready?...

;-O

Cheers,
Martin

AN/FPS-117

air traffic control and air search.

---

AN/FPS-117

air traffic control and air search.

Well, we already know where Arecibo is. We don't need to re-find it!... And we certainly don't want any UFOs to be positively identified either!!


Hopefully, discussions are in progress before the HARMs go in?...

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Is there a weather radar near by? Perhaps your picking up sidelobes or back lobes getting into the sidelobes of the receiving antenna? Sidelobe poke through or sibelobe of a separate transmitter getting into the sidelobe of the receiver? I am not actually suggesting radar, but even perhaps unshielded equipment nearby?

Many years ago very quiet night I could pick up the airport radar at Lindberg Field (or possibly the North Island Naval Station) on my CB radio. Gotta watch out for those harmonics.

That was more likely direct front end overload. I used to get the sweep right next to I-5 just north of the main gate to Camp Pandleton when I lived in base housing as a teen on my boom box tape deck (via the audio amplifier, not the radio), radio, clock radio, and shortwave radio. It would be audible on each sweep.

I might add that the FCC and NTIA maintain radio blackout zones around radio telescopes (for instance see the restrictions under 47 CFR Part 97 Sec. 303(k))

[quoteThe two liniear polarisations of each ALFA beam can be combined to give both circular ("helical") polarisations. SO we could do the s@h search on FOUR polarisations per beam to give 4 x 7 = 28 streams of data.

I wonder if a bit more programming for the data splitting could add searching the circular polarisations?
[/quote]

I would think that if we are looking for ET at these frequencies, that ET has the same issues with beaming a linear polarization from the surface of it's planet as we do from ours.

Because of Faraday Rotation, most space communications between Earth and something in space are circularly polarized, because circular polarization makes the effects of faraday rotation negligible.

I would assume that ET's planet has a magnetic field too that causes similar effects.

It's said that one of the very first Earth-Moon-Earth contacts was from Arecibo using the 430 MHz disc feed that no longer exists (the one the bad guy in that Bond movie gets skewered with).

The pulses show up at band center frequencies regardless of the local oscillator settings because the pulses are strong enough to saturate the mixers. That's primarily fooled us into thinking it was an instrumentation problem. (The local oscillator is how the observing frequency band is tuned within the receiver band.)

The Punta Salinas website table gives the duration of the pulses, 41.2 and 409.6 microseconds. I didnt check the frequencies of of the occurrences of the pulses; they might be there, too. The frequencies of the signals themselves are just below those of Seti, from about 1.2 to 1.4 GHz.

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)