[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Ambient Noise Levels

To: <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Ambient Noise Levels
From: W0UN -- John Brosnahan <shr@swtexas.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:07:17 -0500
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
At 12:07 PM 8/10/2006, you wrote:

>One wonders what the impact of BPL on OTHER radio astronomy
>observatories might be...perhaps there's an ally there, in our
>public battle?   Right now, it's clear that the executive branch
>is pushing public industrial policy in a way which will not serve
>consumers OR investors, despite their assertions that it will.
>Making the right case to Congress is our only hope here.
>(As worrisome as that thought may be.)  Finding an ally which is
>considered serious...and potentially one in another country, so
>we can assert that BPL is contravening a treaty... may be of great
>"The 7-80 MHz radio astronomy observatory at the University
>of Colorado (where I worked in the 1970s) is no longer operational,
>but if it were then BPL would be the death of it!
>73  John  W0UN"

Unfortunately there is little HF radio astronomy going on these days
other than some solar observations.  But there is still a fair amount of
atmospheric science remote sensing in this frequency range, and BPL
be a potentially serious problem to this sort of work.

HAARP is an example of atmospheric science research, but it
is remote enough that there is little potential for problems with BPL.

Although the Arecibo dish is usually associated with radio astronomy
rather than atmospheric science, it was true a few years ago (and
may still be true) that more of their work is studying the earth's
atmosphere than doing radio astronomy.

John  W0UN

RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>