Value chain · CLM-0079
In plain terms
The 1978 paper modelled both a ground facility and a satellite case, and its 500 watts per square metre figure is a power flux for a given temperature rise, not a power rating.
The claim as recorded
Perkins and Roble 1978 modelled a 15 MHz and 3 MW ground facility case at Arecibo alongside a 3 GHz and 10 GW satellite case, reported in quantitative agreement, and the same code applied to Platteville at 1.6 MW predicted electron temperature rises of up to a factor of five in the lower ionosphere; the associated threshold figure of 500 W/m2 is a power flux for a stated temperature rise and is a different physical quantity from the beam power rating.
Scope and limits
Second-hand. Perkins and Roble's own text was not obtained; Unpaywall confirms definitively that no open-access copy exists anywhere, with is_oa: false and no repository copy.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Described in detail in DOE/ER/10003-T2, held locally. The 500 W/m2 figure appears in SRC-104 and SRC-100 as the flux for a 200 K to 1000 K E-layer rise.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-010 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0046 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0079
CLM-0079, Energy Aperture, as of 1978.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-100
- CLM-0032In 2007 the international radio science union published a white paper saying that nobody had measured this heating effect from the ground...CLM-0047Heating falls with the square of frequency. In 2007 no ground-based measurement of it was available at gigahertz frequencies, and...CLM-0048An international scientific body reviewed the proposed figures, found them ranging from 230 to 1,000 watts per square metre, and chose 300...CLM-0049The stated design intent in a 2007 URSI white paper is that the beam would be shaped to fall to 10 watts per square metre by the edge of...CLM-0067According to a 2007 international report, Japanese designs of the time chose their beam strength on cost and land grounds; the report does...CLM-0083The formula is the right type but nobody has said how far it can be pushed, and at space solar power frequencies the wave is about 200...CLM-0101The 1978 contract required the researchers to report fixes if ionospheric disturbance pushed the pilot-beam phase error past 2 to 3...CLM-0137In four major space solar power studies from 1978 to 2007, none put a number on how much of the beam's energy would be lost if the beam...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-104
- CLM-0042The 230 watts per square metre figure applies to one frequency and one design lineage. Japanese designs at a higher frequency allow up to...CLM-0057There is a formula for the instability threshold. It depends on electron density cubed, electron temperature to the fourth power, and...CLM-0059The two fields were largely the same people from the 1970s, and papers linking them were still appearing after 1991.CLM-0075When ESA revisited the question in 2004 it used the 1978 theory and did not cite the 1979-81 Platteville tests or NASA's 1981 revision of...CLM-0083The formula is the right type but nobody has said how far it can be pushed, and at space solar power frequencies the wave is about 200...CLM-0108A 2004 ESA review found that during the October 2003 solar storm, just under 20 per cent of a space solar power beam would have been...CLM-0109In normal conditions the ionosphere takes essentially none of the beam. In a severe solar storm it could take a little under a fifth of it.CLM-0130The quiet-condition absorption figures from four sources do not disagree. One of them states an upper bound and the others sit inside it.More on the source page.