Can anyone verify that the designed scan rate of pictures on the 1977
Voyager Golden Record was 120 Hz? If it was, do you agree the cover
has these 2 errors on it?
These won't cause problems in decoding the content, because the cover
specifies the first picture is a circle and any timing adjustments
needed to make this so will be applied to all pictures. But still,
once those timing adjustments are made, the following two things will
be apparent to the receiving aliens. How embarrassing for our race.
1) The top-right image on the cover shows a time of 8.34 ms (after
conversion from binary, multiplication by the hydrogen-line period,
and rounding) as the time of 1 scan line and *2 retrace lines*. If
the intent was to indicate a 1/120 second sawtooth period, the left
duration marker should have been drawn one retrace-duration to the
right.
2) If the time indicated is meant to be 1/120 seconds (exactly 8 1/3
ms), then the binary value beneath it, resolved to as many bits as it
is, has a bit error. The value shown on the cover is
101101001100000000000000 = 723*2^14 (exactly)
Multiplying 8 1/3 ms by the hydrogen-line frequency of 1420.405752
MHz, rounding to the nearest integer, and converting to base 2 results
in
101101001001110100101011 = 722.46*2^14 (approximately, but it should
round to 722)
So the 10th bit on the Voyager cover should be a 0, not a 1. This
results in a time value very close to 8.34 ms instead of the ideal 8
1/3 ms.
Androcles - 23 Sep 2007 11:30 GMT
: Can anyone verify that the designed scan rate of pictures on the 1977
: Voyager Golden Record was 120 Hz? If it was, do you agree the cover
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
: results in a time value very close to 8.34 ms instead of the ideal 8
: 1/3 ms.
You doesn't seriously believe anyone is going to find a painted grain
of sand on the ocean floor, do you?
richard schumacher - 23 Sep 2007 21:59 GMT
> You doesn't seriously believe anyone is going to find a painted grain
> of sand on the ocean floor, do you?
We'll go out and pick it up someday, and then have a good laugh at
ourselves.
Androcles - 23 Sep 2007 22:32 GMT
: > You doesn't seriously believe anyone is going to find a painted grain
: > of sand on the ocean floor, do you?
:
: We'll go out and pick it up someday, and then have a good laugh at
: ourselves.
It ain't a boomerang, have the good laugh now. Ya know, if
you put a message in a coke bottle and threw it the sea, and just
supposing it happened to find it's way up the Chesapeake to the
White House lawn, someone would pick it up and put it in a litter
bin without reading it.
das namen ist- - 24 Sep 2007 07:43 GMT
> > You doesn't seriously believe anyone is going to find a painted grain
> > of sand on the ocean floor, do you?
>
> We'll go out and pick it up someday, and then have a good laugh at
> ourselves.
most likely that is exactly what will happen - as a training exercise.
Robert Casey - 27 Sep 2007 20:51 GMT
> most likely that is exactly what will happen - as a training exercise.
It'll be a while. Hopefully we'll retrive it before some bored Klingons
use it for target practice... :-)
AM - 30 Sep 2007 02:58 GMT
>> most likely that is exactly what will happen - as a training exercise.
>>
> It'll be a while. Hopefully we'll retrive it before some bored Klingons
> use it for target practice... :-)
They didn't even send The Beatles..tsk tsk
Rick Nungester - 26 Sep 2007 00:15 GMT
> 2) If the time indicated is meant to be 1/120 seconds (exactly 8 1/3
> ms), then the binary value beneath it, resolved to as many bits as it
> is, has a bit error.
If the time indicated is meant to be 2 times the standard NTSC (TV)
scan rate of 60/1.001 Hz (instead of exactly 120 Hz), then the binary
value is correct.
(1/(2*60/1.001)) / (2^14 / 1420.405752e6) =~ 723.17, which should
round to 723, and the value on the cover image is correct.
(1420.405752e6 Hz is the frequency of the hydrogen line.)
But this is the period of the scan sawtooth waveform, which is not
what is indicated in the graphic, so I still think the graphic is in
error.