Talk:HD 164595

Signal (in re last paragraph)

http://observer.com/2016/08/not-a-drill-seti-is-investigating-a-possible-extraterrestrial-signal-from-deep-space/:

"An international team of scientists from the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is investigating mysterious signal spikes emitting from a 6.3-billion-year-old star in the constellation Hercules—95 light years away from Earth. The implications are extraordinary and point to the possibility of a civilization far more advanced than our own.

"The unusual signal was originally detected on May 15, 2015, by the Russian Academy of Science-operated RATAN-600 radio telescope in Zelenchukskaya, Russia, but was kept secret from the international community. Interstellar space reporter Paul Gilster broke the story after the researchers quietly circulated a paper announcing the detection of “a strong signal in the direction of HD164595." -- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Distance

The introduction says the star is 94ly away, then says 91ly. Which is it? AsterRoc (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is 94 LYs away. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Broadcasting ?

It is argued that (if ever it is sent by a civilization) if the signal is broadcast isotropically, it would require a huge quantity of energy, while if it directed to a single direction, although it could be done by a Type I civilization, why would have they sent it specifically to the Solar system long before they could receive from us any radio signal (Marconi started radio experiments in 1895).

What about this: what if they send a focused beam to EACH of the surrounding stars, one by one, in a radius of xx l.y., a few seconds for each star, or even like a lighthouse beam, in the hope that someone will be listening ? In this case it is feasible, and it is normal that we got it only once in a few months' span, we would receive again the signal during the next cycle, if ever there is a next cycle in their experiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelgre (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Michelgre: Your first point (paragraph) is very valid because Humanity has been broadcasting for about 70 years consistently; so that is 70 light years out to detect us by radio.

Your second point (paragraph) would solve the energy consumption problems of transmitting. So, hope the cycle repeats soon if, and this is a big if, it is an artificial radio signal. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This may well be signals from a otherwise "dark" satellite. Someone must've already figured out a fairly optimal way to "announce" your existence. Some sci-fi writings without future technology? Organised "pinging" of possibly habitable worlds. Energy abundance? Some reason to not fear the response to the pings. Rotational schedule, pinging more often the nearer they are. Preferred frequencies? Waterhole? Hold time, how many seconds of signal minimum (this was ~2s) vs some amount of time correlated to the frequency, to make it more obvious as a ping? Reading http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36248 a comment says 1GW * 2 <= small nuclear plant level of energy. So would Earth be able to set up a "pinging" project, and at what $ cost? Here's hoping that some fellow Wikinauts know of relevant sources for (some of) my questions. Peace out. Sesammases (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge back. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Content from this page was copy-paste moved to a new article, Radio signal from HD 164595. I propose that that be formally merged back. Since the signal was only heard on one occasion, and because a growing number of reliable sources believe it to be of terrestrial origin, this is a dead end as far as notability is concerned. Ultimately all that will need to be said about it is that a signal was once heard from this direction, never heard again, and generally believed to have come from a military satellite. That doesn't justify a standalone article.This rationale postdates BatteryIncluded's support below. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The information is so scant, it is best kept together. Besides, the star would not be notable if it wasn't for the signal. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Far better to have a mention in the main article. The radio signal was not reported at the time, as per accepted agreements, and could well have been a military satellite. I see no justification for a separate article. David J Johnson (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Against Regardless of the G-type star, or the planet, the radio signal has much relevance in itself. Salvabl (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The same signal the researches call a false positive? BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It can be a false positive, ok, let's include it in the article. But in my opinion it is relevant. Salvabl (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support for merging "Radio signal from HD 164595" back to "HD 164595" - seems there may not be enough settled (and notable) information in the responsible scientific literature to justify a newly created article (ie, "Radio signal from HD 164595") at this time - if more settled (and notable) information becomes available, perhaps such an article *may* be indicated - but not at the moment imo - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Creation of a separate article that duplicates the content is not warranted. JeanLucMargot (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support although there might be a case for a section about false positives at Search for extraterrestrial intelligence, including summaries of those that received significant mainstream news coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Age of star

Article says 4.5, but there are different numbers being thrown around, Phil Plait says 6 [1]. I gather that this isn't an easy estimate to make, how should the discrepancies be factored in? Geogene (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I would go by by the paper, not Phil Plait as he is a communicator, not the researcher of that project. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)