What is the highest radio frequency used for astronomy? Is it 3,438 GHz?
Radium
What is the highest radio frequency used for astronomy? Is it 3,438
GHz?
According to the link below, it is 3,438 GHz:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11719&page=11
Is 3,438 GHz the highest radio frequency used for astronomy?
Thanks,
Radium
Mike Kaliski
"Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188510732....@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Radium
As the article suggests, higher frequencies are considered as being in the
infra red wavelengths of light, so 3,438 GHz can be considered to be at the
upper limits of radio frequency astronomy.
Visible light, ultra violet light, x-rays and gamma rays are all
electromagnetic waves at higher frequencies and are also used for astronomy
observations and experiments. Satellites are generally used to observe in
the ultra violet, x-ray and gamma ray spectrums as these wave lengths are
largely absorbed by the earth's atmosphere.
Remember, there are no strict cut off frequencies where one type of
electromagnetic wave becomes another type. Radio merges into infra red which
merges into visible light, ultra violet, x-rays and so on. Any limits are
purely arbitary ones applied by humans in order to categorise the way in
which electromagnetic waves of a certain frequency can be expected to
behave.
Look at a colour palette. It is easy to pick out the primary colours.
Everyone who isn't colour blind can pick out red, blue, green, yellow etc.
But where do you draw the line to decide where red becomes green, blue or
yellow? The colours slowly merge from one to another just as the
characteristics of radio waves change as frequency increases.
Mike G0ULI
Dave Platt
That's very much a matter of convention. It all depends what you
choose to call "radio frequency" and what you choose to call something
else.
As the article you cite points out, the measurements at 3438 GHz
(3.438 THz) blur the lines between microwave measurements (which many
would call "radio") and far-infrared measurements (which may would not
call "radio frequency").
One source I see gives a frequency of 3.0 THz as the boundary between
"microwave" and "infrared". That boundary point is, I believe,
entirely one of human convention - there's no magical change in the
behavior of the signals as you cross from one side of this frequency
to the other.
If you choose to treat the conventional boundary point of 3.0 THz as
being significant for the purpose of your question, then one would
have to say that the 3,438 GHz measurements you refer to are *not*
"radio frequency" measurements, but rather "far-infrared"
measurements.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Tam/WB2TT
"Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:3btjq4-...@radagast.org...
I am curious here. At some point you have to switch from metallic conductors
and antennas to lenses and other optics. Any idea what the highest frequency
RF amplifier works at?
Tam
Rich Grise
No.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Don Bowey
"Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
It's all subject to state-of-the-art. 50 years ago 300 MHz. was complex to
work with and 10 GHz. was considered way out there. Today 300 MHz is about
as simple as DC and 10 GHz. is fairly straightforward to work with.
I imagine that in another 50 years or less, Integrated hybrid circuits for 3
THz. will be on the shelf items for experimenters to play with.
Sjouke Burry
Road radar for car control from Philips, radar output was a very small
horn antenna connected to a wave guide, and in front of that they used a
plexyglass condensor lens to make a narrow beam, like you do with light.
Apparently those mm waves liked that plastic lens just fine.
Dave Platt
Tam/WB2TT <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
>I am curious here. At some point you have to switch from metallic conductors
>and antennas to lenses and other optics. Any idea what the highest frequency
>RF amplifier works at?
Dunno about an RF amplifier per se.
I do know that there have been some very interesting experiments with
nanotechnology, over the past couple of years, in which tiny carbon
nanotubes have been used as optical-frequency antennas.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1442.php has a brief writeup
on one such.
John Smith
> ...
> I do know that there have been some very interesting experiments with
> nanotechnology, over the past couple of years, in which tiny carbon
> nanotubes have been used as optical-frequency antennas.
>
> http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1442.php has a brief writeup
> on one such.
>
Let's hope, super cheap, super efficient solar panels would be great!
Bye, bye power company ...
Regards,
JS
K7ITM
wrote:
In fact, that would work fine at 10GHz, at 1GHz, and even at 1MHz,
though the amount of material you'd have to use for the lens gets
prohibitive at lower frequencies. It's all engineering tradeoffs. I
know that "geodesic" lenses are used in some radar systems; the idea
is that you have the signal travel a longer path (through a curved
waveguide structure) in the center of the antenna/feed than it does
toward the edges, just as in a convex lens the light in the center of
the beam is slowed for a greater distance (and therefore retarded
more) than the light at the outer edges.
I expect the boundary between "optics" and "electronics" will blur
even more than it is already as both electronics and optical
technologies continue to advance.
Cheers,
Tom
Dave Platt
Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote:
>I have even seen optics and electronics combined in an experimental
>Road radar for car control from Philips, radar output was a very small
>horn antenna connected to a wave guide, and in front of that they used a
>plexyglass condensor lens to make a narrow beam, like you do with light.
>Apparently those mm waves liked that plastic lens just fine.
It's also possible to use photonic crystals and quasicrystals to
refract and band-process electromagnetic energy across a very wide
range of frequencies... all the way from radio, through microwave,
through far infrared, and into the optical spectrum.
RHF
- - - And Cross-Posting to Rec.Radio.Shortwave Again !
.
3,438 GHz - Wow Now That Is A Mighty Short Wave and
clearly beyond my Shortwave Radio's Ability - DOH Again !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio
.
Golly Gee . . . It's Astronomical ! ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy
.
.
. .
J. Mc Laughlin
Mac
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1188526244.4...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Harold E. Johnson
>> Apparently those mm waves liked that plastic lens just fine.
>
> In fact, that would work fine at 10GHz, at 1GHz, and even at 1MHz,
> though the amount of material you'd have to use for the lens gets
> prohibitive at lower frequencies. It's all engineering tradeoffs. I
> know that "geodesic" lenses are used in some radar systems; the idea
> is that you have the signal travel a longer path (through a curved
> waveguide structure) in the center of the antenna/feed than it does
> toward the edges, just as in a convex lens the light in the center of
> the beam is slowed for a greater distance (and therefore retarded
> more) than the light at the outer edges.
>
> I expect the boundary between "optics" and "electronics" will blur
> even more than it is already as both electronics and optical
> technologies continue to advance.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
Hi Tom, we've used plastic lensing since at least the late 60's for focusing
mundane 4-12 GHz radio waves. Dielectric refraction was used back then to
extract additional gain from dish antennas by allowing more even
illumination of the dish without illuminating the area around the dish.
Harris radio had a patent on it.
W4ZCB
>
RHF
-
- Dear RHF: So, do not echo to antenna group.
- Mac
>
> "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1188526244.4...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > It's "Radium" And His Asking Questions - DOH !
> > - - - And Cross-Posting to Rec.Radio.Shortwave Again !
> > .
> > 3,438 GHz - Wow Now That Is A Mighty Short Wave and
> > clearly beyond my Shortwave Radio's Ability - DOH Again !
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio
> > .
> > Golly Gee . . . It's Astronomical ! ~ RHF
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy
> > .
> > .
>
> - Show quoted text -
JMcL - Ditto for Rec.Radio.Shortwave ~ RHF
.
John Todd
gluc...@gmail.com says...
Actually, it says 3 THz.
3.4GHz is C band, like satellite TV. Ku band sat TV is 12GHz.
There are many off-the-shelf radio instruments available well above this.
K7ITM
Hi Harold,
Yep. The radar stuff I wrote about is from that era. I wouldn't be
at all surprised to see mention of it from well before that; certainly
we knew about the effect that makes dielectric lens action possible
for RF (which is after all just a continuation of the spectrum that
includes visible light) since before we knew how to generate
appreciable energy at microwave frequencies.
Cheers,
Tom
RHF
> In article <1188510732.103951.83...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> gluceg...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi:
>
> > What is the highest radio frequency used for astronomy? Is it 3,438
> > GHz?
>
> > According to the link below, it is 3,438 GHz:
>
> >http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11719&page=11
>
> > Is 3,438 GHz the highest radio frequency used for astronomy?
>
> > Thanks,
>
-
- Actually, it says 3 THz.
- 3.4GHz is C band, like satellite TV. Ku band sat TV is 12GHz.
- There are many off-the-shelf radio instruments
- available well above this.
HELLO - 3,438 GHz or 3.438 THz It Don't Matter.
- - It Ain't Shortwave {High Frequency} Radio - -
.
Please remove Rec.Radio.Shortwave from "Radium's
3,483 GHz Radio Astronomy Posting and Your Replies.
.
Listening to Radio Rebelde right now on 11,655 kHz
{Thats in the 25m Shortwave Band} @ 16:57 UTC
http://www.radiorebelde.com.cu/programacion.htm
Horarios y Frecuencias de Trasmisión de Radio Rebelde
.
Listening to the Beautiful Sounds of Latin Music
and yes it sounds Astronomical to my Ears !
.
Radio Rebelde - Habana Cuba - al Ritmo de la Vida
http://www.radiorebelde.com.cu/
TOH News in Spanish @ 17:00 UTC
.
Redsun RP2100 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio
http://www.radiointel.com/review-redsunrp2100.htm
just using the Whip Antenna S2~S3 with Fair Audio.
.
17:30 UTC out ~ RHF - Twain Harte, CA -USA-
.
.
. .
Rich Grise
> "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> I am curious here. At some point you have to switch from metallic conductors
>> and antennas to lenses and other optics. Any idea what the highest frequency
>> RF amplifier works at?
>
> work with and 10 GHz. was considered way out there. Today 300 MHz is about
> as simple as DC and 10 GHz. is fairly straightforward to work with.
>
> I imagine that in another 50 years or less, Integrated hybrid circuits for 3
> THz. will be on the shelf items for experimenters to play with.
Whenever they discover neutronium, they can make ångstrom-sized
klystrons. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> Tam/WB2TT <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
>
>>I am curious here. At some point you have to switch from metallic conductors
>>and antennas to lenses and other optics. Any idea what the highest frequency
>>RF amplifier works at?
>
> Dunno about an RF amplifier per se.
>
> I do know that there have been some very interesting experiments with
> nanotechnology, over the past couple of years, in which tiny carbon
> nanotubes have been used as optical-frequency antennas.
>
> http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1442.php has a brief writeup
> on one such.
So, is anybody making solar panels with them yet?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> Tam/WB2TT wrote:
>>
>> I am curious here. At some point you have to switch from metallic conductors
>> and antennas to lenses and other optics. Any idea what the highest frequency
>> RF amplifier works at?
>>
> Road radar for car control from Philips, radar output was a very small
> horn antenna connected to a wave guide, and in front of that they used a
> plexyglass condensor lens to make a narrow beam, like you do with light.
> Apparently those mm waves liked that plastic lens just fine.
Now that you mention it, I saw something on the same principle once, but
it was half a ping-pong ball filled with paraffin. :-)
Cheers!
Rich
Radium
> "Radium" <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry, I meant to ask whether 3,438 GHz is the highest radio frequency
used to receive audio signals from outer space. I should have made my
question more specific. Radio-astronomers study sounds from the sun as
well as visual data.
I wonder if a space station with a 3,438 GHz AM receiver could pick up
any extremely-distant audio signals between 20 to 20,000 Hz [from
magnetars, gamma-ray-bursts, supernovae and other high-energy but
cosmic objects] after demodulating the 3,438 GHz AM carrier wave.
msg
>
>
> Sorry, I meant to ask whether 3,438 GHz is the highest radio frequency
> used to receive audio signals from outer space.
I thought perhaps the O.P. was from Europe or the U.K. and that the
comma in the above numeric was a substitution for a decimal point, but
alas the posting IP is from So. Cal. ....
Regards,
Michael
Mike Kaliski
Radium
You are referring to "the music of the spheres". The random noises generated
by very distant quasars, galaxies, supernovae and other objects.
Yes it probably could and you would hear all sorts of weird pops, whistles
and background noise. Just like at pretty much any other frequencies you
care to monitor.
Mike G0ULI
RHF
Hello Off-Topic "Radium-Lite" Cross-Posters,
Since "Radium" Posted this Question to several Newsgroups
and the Topic is a Non-Shortwave Radio Question that is being
Cross-Posted to the Rec.Radio.Shortwave Newsgroup :
Let me 'morph' this Question so that it is something related
to Shortwave Radio.
"What is the Highest Radio Frequency used for Shortwave {High
Frequency) Radio ?
i want to know -cause- i have been 'radiumized' ~ RHF
.
.
. .
RHF
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello Off-Topic "Radium-Lite" Cross-Posters,
John Fields
wrote:
---
Indeed.
This "Radium" personage seems to be no more than a troll who could
answer his own questions by querying the available literature, but
who seems intent on wasting others' time by posting idiocy which
must be refuted.
--
JF
Al in Dallas
I think you need to consider how many watts of sunlight fall on an
acre.
--
Al in St. Lou
Eric F. Richards
Since people who say things like that don't bother to actually know
how to calculate the answer to that, the recoverable solar energy per
acre is 5.25 MW.
If your solar collection is only 10% efficient -- far below what is
common today -- you'd still get 525 kW / acre.
Since covering land with solar panels is not necessarily the best or
most aesthetic or most socially acceptible use of land, consider what
could be done with south-facing rooftops and solar shingles like those
made by http://www.uni-solar.com/
--
Eric F. Richards
efr...@dim.com
"Don't destroy the Earth! That's where I keep all of my stuff!"
- Squidd on www.fark.com
Jasen Betts
> I am curious here. At some point you have to switch from metallic conductors
> and antennas to lenses and other optics. Any idea what the highest frequency
> RF amplifier works at?
I've heard of X-ray lasers.
Bye.
Jasen
RHF
I am Hearing a Talking House on 1670 kHz
with the Voice of "Randy the Radio Realitor"
-aka- Randy Steigler => http://www.randysteiger.com/
.
Re/Max Del Oro -in- San Luis Obispo County, CA
http://www.deloroproperties.com/
Speaking of Astronomical - SFH : 3Br+2Ba ~ $385K
.
Twain Harte, CA 95383 -USA- ~ RHF
.
.
. .
r2000...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 2, 12:29 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@free.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > On 2007-08-30, Tam/WB2TT <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
>
> > > I am curious here. At some point you have to switch from metallic conductors
> > > and antennas to lenses and other optics. Any idea what the highest frequency
> > > RF amplifier works at?
>
> > I've heard of X-ray lasers.
>
> > Bye.
> > Jasen
>
> I am Hearing a Talking House on 1670 kHz
> with the Voice of "Randy the Radio Realitor"
> -aka- Randy Steigler =>http://www.randysteiger.com/
> .
> Speaking of Astronomical - SFH : 3Br+2Ba ~ $385K
> .
> Twain Harte, CA 95383 -USA- ~ RHF
> .
> .
> . .
This will be buried inside a completely unrelated thread, but there
are lots of "low power",
Part 15 100mW, devices in the MW band. There is a Military Graveyard
just about 15
miles south of me that has such a transmitter for "self guided
tours". I have seen/received
several "talking houses" including a solar powered one that I was very
tempted to visit
under the cover of dark and appropriate for my own use.
I have seen a few billboards with these also. Down toward Tennessee
the big firworks
outlets tended to use them about 8 years ago. I don't know if they are
still in use cause
I don't get down there these days.
Regarding my hunt for the UNID 1640 station rebroadcasting A NOAA
weather stream,
I had assumed by content it was at or near Cave Run Lake, near
Morehead KY. But we
visited there Friday and no signal. I talked to the Corp of Engineers
and they suggested
we check in Jackson. So off we went. As we approached Jackson it was
clear it was
not there. But I decided to check the Jackson Airport/NOAA office to
see what they knew.
They were aware of the TIS stations in Winchester and Richmond that
carried NOAA
and were for use in the event of a nerve agent leak from the Blue
Grass Army Depot
in Richmond, but they knew of no station on 1640. They gave me a list
of towns where there
are low powered NOAA WX transmitters to check and it wasn't in any of
them. On a lark
we went to Richmond Yesterday and the TIS on 1610 is still only
receivable right next
the the emergency center. But there was a different station on 1640.
This one is clearly
connected with the Nerve Agent program and may be in Berea.
Sooner then later I hope to locate both 1640 transmitters.
I will post the main body of this under a new thread.
Terry
Jim Lux
>
>
> Hi Tom, we've used plastic lensing since at least the late 60's for focusing
> mundane 4-12 GHz radio waves. Dielectric refraction was used back then to
> extract additional gain from dish antennas by allowing more even
> illumination of the dish without illuminating the area around the dish.
> Harris radio had a patent on it.
>
J.C. Bose used dielectric lenses at 90 GHz back at the end of 19th
century (that is, in the late 1800s) when doing his experiments in Calcutta.
Optical techniques have been used in radio for a very, very long time.