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?recor ... 19&page=11

Is 3,438 GHz the highest radio frequency used for astronomy?


Thanks,

Radium

"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188510732.103951.83430@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> 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?recor ... 19&page=11
>
> Is 3,438 GHz the highest radio frequency used for astronomy?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>

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

>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?

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 <dplatt@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!

"Dave Platt" <dplatt@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:3btjq4-cq6.ln1@radagast.org...
> >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?
>
> 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 <dplatt@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!

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

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:52:12 -0700, Radium wrote:

> 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?recor ... 19&page=11
>
> Is 3,438 GHz the highest radio frequency used for astronomy?

No.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

In article <-q2dnadn97rczkrbnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@comcast.com>,
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.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@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!

On Aug 30, 5:25 pm, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnlll>
wrote:
> Tam/WB2TT wrote:
> > "Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
> >news:3btjq4-cq6.ln1@radagast.org...
> >>> 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?
> >> 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!
>
> > 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
>
> 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.

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

In article <1188510732.103951.83430@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
glucegen1@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?recor ... 19&page=11
>
> Is 3,438 GHz the highest radio frequency used for astronomy?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>
>

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.

On Aug 30, 7:26 pm, "Harold E. Johnson" <W4...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> 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
>
>

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

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:16:59 -0700, Dave Platt wrote:
> 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

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:25:14 +0200, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> 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?
>>
> 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.

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

On Aug 30, 3:08 pm, "Mike Kaliski" <michael.kali...@tesco.net> wrote:
> "Radium" <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188510732.103951.83430@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > 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,
>
> > Radium
>
> 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

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.

"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188620267.480204.139080@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 30, 3:08 pm, "Mike Kaliski" <michael.kali...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> "Radium" <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188510732.103951.83430@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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,
>>
>> > Radium
>>
>> 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
>
> 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.
>

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

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:44:45 -0500, msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_>
wrote:

>Radium wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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. ....

---
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 <alfargnoli@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:24:40 -0700, John Smith
> <assemblywizard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dave Platt wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >> 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 ...
>
> I think you need to consider how many watts of sunlight fall on an
> acre.

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
efricha@dim.com
"Don't destroy the Earth! That's where I keep all of my stuff!"
- Squidd on http://www.fark.com

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