Value chain · CLM-0872
In plain terms
A 1978 efficiency diagram has two of its numbers in the wrong boxes, which its own intermediate figures reveal and its bottom-line total cannot.
The claim as recorded
SRC-085's Figure 5 efficiency chain was computed with its two rectenna efficiencies transposed relative to its own box labels. The figure prints 6.58 GW into RECTENNA ENERGY COLLECTION 0.89, then 5.79 GW into RECTENNA ENERGY CONVERSION 0.88, then 5.15 GW. Taking the labels as printed gives 6.58 x 0.89 = 5.8562 against a printed 5.79 and 5.79 x 0.88 = 5.0952 against a printed 5.15, reproducing neither; applying 0.88 at the collection box and 0.89 at the conversion box gives 5.7904 and 5.1531, reproducing both. The chain total is unaffected either way because the two factors multiply.
Evidence behind this: Four multiplications on the powers and efficiencies printed in the source's own figure, read from a 6x render. CALC-090.
Scope and limits
THE LABELS ARE THE ERROR, ESTABLISHED 2026-09-06 - this claim originally recorded it as open. Three places give 0.88 for collection: the p.37 prose, Figure 5's computed chain, and Figure A-9's stated Current Reference System column. Two give 0.89: the box labels in Figures 5 and 25, which are the only two places carrying no arithmetic to check them against. What is still NOT established is whether the same mislabelling appears anywhere else in the document. Figure 25 and Table B-1 print no intermediates, so only a product-against-total check is available there - and a product is ORDER-INVARIANT, so it cannot detect a transposition at all. Six pages of 322 have been rendered and read, and a chain printed as an image with no text layer would not have entered the sweep's candidate list.
What it assumes
That the power printed above each box is that box's OUTPUT rather than its input. ESTABLISHED FOUR TIMES OVER WITHIN THE FIGURE, so the claim rests on no external value. 11.56 x 0.908 = 10.4965 against a printed 10.50; 10.50 x 0.901 = 9.4605 against 9.46; 8.18 x 0.85 = 6.953 against 6.96; 6.96 x 0.9653 = 6.7185 against 6.72. The INPUT convention fails at the first of those, giving 11.56 x 0.20 = 2.31 against a printed 10.50. The flow then continues into the bottom row at 6.72 x 0.98 = 6.5856 against 6.58.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
CALC-090 gives all four products. Read from a 6x render of PDF p.25; the scan's text layer returns this figure as fragments. The output convention is fixed by the row's own preceding entry, 6.72 x 0.98 = 6.5856 against a printed 6.58. THE TEXT LAYER OF THIS PAGE IS ACTIVELY MISLEADING, NOT MERELY INCOMPLETE. It renders 6.58 as 8.58 and 7.97 as 1.97, and DROPS 6.72, 8.50, 8.18 and 6.96 entirely. Anyone recomputing the chain from extracted text starts at 8.58 and reaches a different conclusion; anyone searching it for 6.72 concludes the value is not on the page, which happened during this claim's own verification.
Basis: efficiency chain, dimensionless; powers in GW
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0872
CLM-0872, Energy Aperture, as of 1978.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-085
- CLM-0013The paper that modern UK studies rely on for the beam figure calls anything below 1 kilowatt per square metre safe, with 230 watts per...CLM-0020The original 1978 design set the beam at 230 watts per square metre in the middle of the receiving site, about one twenty-third of that at...CLM-0023In the 1978 reference design, two limits set the size of the transmitter and the receiving site: how much heat the transmitter can shed...CLM-0039The 1978 report set the figure to protect radio and navigation systems from a disturbed ionosphere, called the number theoretical and...CLM-0045The apparent conflict between 12 and 23 was not an error. The underlying study gave a range, and the figure adopted sits near the top of it.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...CLM-0138The original 1978 government design for beaming power down from space adds up all the expected energy losses to get 63% overall efficiency...More on the source page.