Hello Yo:) Thanks for the links. I read over the links and found them interesting but I don't believe that i have enough physics yet to comment on either article (that will be changing over the next couple years). Every time i started to believe i understood Messerschmitt's thesis for the article i started to doubt myself. Is he saying that we should be looking for a large bandwidth pulse because the larger the bandwidth the less energy required to transmit the signal above the Shannon limit, or did i miss the point of the article entirely? My limited understanding of the article may be completely off that's why I'm asking.

Hi Andrew :)

Well, I'm not an electrical engineer, but I think what Messerschmitt says is:

- If you decrease the bandwidth, design complexity and energy requirements increase. So it's better to use broad bandwidths.

- Nevertheless, above a sufficiently high bandwith, energy requirements don't change. This is good, because the atmosphere and the interstellar medium prevent us from using the whole radio spectrum. For example, the atmosphere is opaque to certain frequencies.

So, signals must be broadband. This also has the additional benefit that interference from TV, radio stations, etc. are less likely, because they are narrowband.

Hope it helps.

Thanks Yo! You said,
"- Nevertheless, above a sufficiently high bandwith, energy requirements don't change. This is good, because the atmosphere and the interstellar medium prevent us from using the whole radio spectrum. For example, the atmosphere is opaque to certain frequencies."
See, i missed that point entirely; that's why i asked. Thanks for summarizing that for me, i'm glad everyone here is so helpful :)

Thanks Yo! You said,
"- Nevertheless, above a sufficiently high bandwith, energy requirements don't change. This is good, because the atmosphere and the interstellar medium prevent us from using the whole radio spectrum. For example, the atmosphere is opaque to certain frequencies."
See, i missed that point entirely; that's why i asked. Thanks for summarizing that for me, i'm glad everyone here is so helpful :)

I'm not much use, but thank you for the tinfoil tip :)

Haha! No problem. Foil is also good for keeping the NSA from reading your thoughts!;)

Hi there!

I am glad to be able to offer my computer to assist in the number crunching for the Seti project.
It's fascinating to view the computation process in dynamic 3-D graphics. I see that the display includes a read-out displaying data on transmitted power/type of transmission and a 'score'.
It would be even more fascinating if I could make sense of the data! Is there a chart/publication somewhere that explains all this in more detail? I would especially like to know what kind of numbers are likely to get the professional Seti guys excited - for example, what would constitute a good 'score' number as far as a possible ETI 'hit' is concerned?
If I was able to do a bit of simple analysis myself, this would certainly further my interest in Seti.

---

... It would be even more fascinating if I could make sense of the data! ...

The obvious place to start is:

How SETI@home works


Welcome to the great search!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

I second that wholeheartedly. Welcome to the boards Ian.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Welcome Ian_Flaming to the SETI Forums!

---

I used to watch the screen saver for hours sometimes to the point where I was sure I was seeing patterns. But now I doubt that anything significant will be detected by looking at those images. It will take a strong computer program to find hidden transmissions if they exist.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

The images are representative, didn't know that either.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures