What is the astronomy reason for no UHF channel 37?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reasons for the reservation of UHF Channel 37 (608-614 MHz) for radio astronomy and the implications of this frequency allocation. Participants explore the significance of this channel in the context of radio astronomical observations and potential interference from other signals.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Channel 37 is reserved to prevent interference with radio astronomy, which relies on detecting very weak signals.
  • Others question the necessity of this specific frequency, suggesting that similar observations could be made at nearby frequencies without significant loss.
  • A participant mentions that the allocation of this channel may have been a compromise in the competitive landscape of frequency allocation, where radio astronomers have limited influence.
  • Some argue that the lack of interference at 611 MHz allows for better detection of signals, while others propose that the choice of this frequency may be arbitrary.
  • One participant references a scientific paper that discusses measurements made at 611 MHz, but notes that it does not explicitly state that this frequency is protected for specific measurements.
  • There is a suggestion that having a clear channel at this frequency could help filter out noise from adjacent channels, enhancing the overall signal quality for radio astronomy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and rationale behind reserving Channel 37 for radio astronomy. While some agree on its importance, others challenge the reasoning and suggest alternative interpretations, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexities of frequency allocation negotiations and the historical context of radio astronomy's position in the spectrum allocation hierarchy. There are also mentions of atmospheric effects and signal processing considerations that may influence the use of this frequency.

  • #31
swampwiz said:
a more costly antenna in the upper region
I'm not sure that a Band V antenna would necessarily be more costly but UHF was high tech at the time and I'd be surprised if it wasn't desirable to limit high power stations to Band IV, to start with. Early Klystrons may have been only just able to manage Band IV frequencies. And it wouldn't just be receiving antenna that would have bandwidth problems. Combiner networks are probably cheaper if the four channels are all as close together as other considerations will allow.

Taking propagation, topography and populations into account too makes service planning a serious art, on top of what we've already discussed.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Aliens! Aliens I tell you. The frequencies used by channel 37 are also used by scientists to send signals into the cosmos to hopefully get a response. Aliens, pure and simple.
 
  • #33
wackedoutscience said:
Aliens! Aliens I tell you. The frequencies used by channel 37 are also used by scientists to send signals into the cosmos to hopefully get a response. Aliens, pure and simple.
I guess the Aliens published their operating channel in the RSGB Bulletin?
 
  • #34
sophiecentaur said:
I guess the Aliens published their operating channel in the RSGB Bulletin?

No, they just read TV Guide.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #35
Here's a nice coincidental article about this that just got published. Basically a team of radio astronomers needed to work within the confines of "engineering" in the construction of the radio telescope. I presume that the corresponding size - and thus natural frequency - was the largest that could be done without making the engineering an order of magnitude more expensive.

(Maybe the author is a lurker here. :cool: )

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy8by7/why-channel-37-doesnt-exist-and-what-it-has-to-do-with-aliens

You see? The target of my dogged inquisitiveness DID have a logical answer underneath the surface. I feel so Einsteinian now!
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G
  • #36
swampwiz said:
I presume that the corresponding size - and thus natural frequency - was the largest that could be done without making the engineering an order of magnitude more expensive.
I should have said natural wavelength instead of natural frequency.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
960
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K