Value chain · CLM-0158
In plain terms
Neither of the two sources read at the page, a 2004 review by Robinson and others and Gurevich (2007), states the range of conditions under which this 1981 low-frequency theory is valid at the much higher microwave frequencies space solar power plans to use; the 2004 review applies a similar formula at 2.48 and 5.8 gigahertz without stating one.
The claim as recorded
Of the sources read at the page that cite, discuss, or are thematically adjacent to Perkins and Goldman's (1981) self-focusing theory (Robinson et al. 2004, Gurevich 2007), neither states an explicit numerical domain-of-validity bound (e.g. a stated range of f/f_p) for applying the theory at GHz frequencies rather than its own ~15 MHz-anchored derivation; Robinson et al. (2004) itself evaluates a structurally identical, GHz-renormalised threshold formula (attributed to Duncan 1981) at 2.48 GHz and 5.8 GHz without stating any such caveat.
Scope and limits
A negative result across two documents read at the page, not the citing literature; does not prove no source anywhere states such a bound. Farley, LaHoz and Fejer (1983) and Guzdar, Chaturvedi, Papadopoulos and Ossakow (1998, SRC-396, not obtained: closed access after 24 routes) were not read and are not covered by this finding. Should not be read as proof the GHz extrapolation is invalid, only that its validity has not been explicitly established or bounded by any source located.
What it assumes
The set of sources checked (a subset of the 88 papers citing Perkins and Goldman 1981, only about 20 of which were reviewed even at abstract level) is representative; two further leads (Leyser 2001; Stubbe 1996/Rietveld et al. 1993) could not be obtained (paywalled) and remain open.
Where it comes from
The register records that this is the clearest available evidence, from an authoritative secondary source, that the practice of applying underdense self-focusing theory unbounded at GHz is real and long-standing. No citing source found in this search states an explicit f/f_p bound of validity for Perkins and Goldman's theory.
Basis: none
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0158
CLM-0158, Energy Aperture, as of 2004-2007 (search conducted 2026).
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- 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-0079The 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...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.More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-132
- CLM-0114The Russian treatment says self-focusing is triggered by lumpiness already present in the ionosphere, not by beam power crossing a line...CLM-0116The Russian formulas are a different shape from the 0.43 relation, so they cannot be used to check it either way.CLM-0147A major 2007 physics review gives a different mathematical formula, with different dependence on temperature and frequency and no...