mark@sdencore.UUCP (Mark DiVecchio) (06/09/85)
I read somewhere that there are several "natural" frequencies. One is the vibration frequency of the Hydrogen atom. -- Mark C. DiVecchio K3FWT [ihnp4|akgua|decvax|dcdwest|ucbvax]sdcsvax!sdencore!mark
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (06/12/85)
> I read somewhere that there are several "natural" frequencies. > One is the vibration frequency of the Hydrogen atom. They're called natural frequencies because nature emits a good deal of noise on these wavelengths. Therefore these are exactly the frequencies that you *don't* want to use for communications. -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (06/13/85)
In article <1562@orca.UUCP> andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) writes: >> I read somewhere that there are several "natural" frequencies. >> One is the vibration frequency of the Hydrogen atom. > >They're called natural frequencies because nature emits a good deal of >noise on these wavelengths. Therefore these are exactly the >frequencies that you *don't* want to use for communications. > > -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] > (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA] there is at least one of the hydrogen vibrational frequencies that is relativey quite. i think it's the 21 cm band. anyway, project SETI used it to send their signals and i think a few others did too. i would have to dig through old journals to find out which projects and if any other frequencies were tried. BTW, who says that electromagnetic radiation (radio or light) had to be used? if subspace frequencies were in common use at the time, they would be the ones used as a starting point, and they might be very quiet by comparision. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
scott weisman@sdcc13.UUCP (scott " " weisman) (06/13/85)
In article <1562@orca.UUCP>, andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) writes: > > I read somewhere that there are several "natural" frequencies. > > One is the vibration frequency of the Hydrogen atom. > > They're called natural frequencies because nature emits a good deal of > noise on these wavelengths. Therefore these are exactly the > frequencies that you *don't* want to use for communications. > > -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] > (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA] actually, i believe they are called natural frequencies because they ABSORB any electromagnetic radiation emmitted at that freq. this means that this area of the spectrum is unnaturally quiet(which is what we want). scott weisman (gone 6/15)