Value chain · CLM-0095
In plain terms
My earlier duty-cycle figures were percentages of a filtered subset, not of all measured conditions, but were written as though they were of all conditions. The correct all-conditions figures are 23.8 per cent and 1.5 per cent, not 38.5 and 4.9.
The claim as recorded
The Sondrestrom figures of 38.5 per cent at 2.45 GHz and 4.9 per cent at 5.8 GHz are the fraction of conditions IN WHICH THE INSTABILITY CAN OCCUR, that is of the subset already satisfying the domain condition, and not the fraction of all measured F-region conditions; expressed against all 40,736 measured conditions a 230 watts per square metre beam is over threshold at 23.8 per cent at 2.45 GHz and 1.5 per cent at 5.8 GHz.
Scope and limits
This corrects the denominator only. Every underlying number in CLM-0094 reproduced exactly, so the calculation was right and only its expression was wrong. Still high-latitude data; see CLM-0096 for mid-latitude.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
Recomputed from the same five Madrigal files with the same quality filter, reproducing CALC-012 exactly: 40,736 rows, Ne 1.55e10 to 1.85e12 median 3.4e11, Te 502 to 4,864 median 1,650, r = +0.520, median threshold 364 W/m2 at 2.45 GHz and 1,823 W/m2 at 5.8 GHz. Domain condition satisfied at 61.7 pct (2.45 GHz) and 31.1 pct (5.8 GHz). 38.5 pct of 61.7 pct is 23.8 pct of all; 4.9 pct of 31.1 pct is 1.5 pct of all.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-009 not published in this release
- Contradicts
- CLM-0094 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0094 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0095
CLM-0095, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.