What is the astronomy reason for no UHF channel 37?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

UHF Channel 37, operating between 608 and 614 MHz, is reserved for radio astronomy to prevent interference with weak astronomical signals. This frequency band is crucial for observations between the dedicated allocations of 410 MHz and 1.4 GHz. The allocation of Channel 37 was a strategic decision to provide a quiet spectrum area for radio astronomers, as they face significant challenges from signal noise and interference. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) plays a key role in regulating frequency allocations to balance the needs of various stakeholders, including commercial broadcasters and scientific research.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of UHF frequency bands and their allocations
  • Familiarity with radio astronomy principles and signal detection
  • Knowledge of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) regulations
  • Basic concepts of signal-to-noise ratio in radio communications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in frequency allocation
  • Study the impact of signal-to-noise ratio on radio astronomy observations
  • Explore the significance of the 1,420 MHz hydrogen line in astronomical studies
  • Investigate the historical context of UHF channel allocations in the United States
USEFUL FOR

Radio astronomers, telecommunications engineers, and anyone involved in frequency management and allocation will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the intersection of commercial broadcasting and scientific research.

  • #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
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
844
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • · 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
716
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K