Value chain · CLM-1008
In plain terms
The 1980 documents give the beam's strength at the satellite, on failure, and above and below the receiving panels. The summary and the detailed report disagree by about twenty times on how much reaches the ground under the panels, which is the number the conclusions about ground animals and plants rest on.
The claim as recorded
The two DOE 1980 assessments state the exposure geometry as 2200 mW/cm2 near the centre of the transmitting antenna and 240 mW/cm2 at its edge, a drop to about 0.003 mW/cm2 peak if phase control fails, 23 mW/cm2 above the rectenna, and disagree on the density beneath the panels: the summary says "as high as 5 mW/cm2 near the edge of a rectenna panel" with most of the area below 1 mW/cm2, while the detailed microwave volume says "between 0.01 and 0.23 mW/cm2" directly underneath and 0.1 to 1.0 mW/cm2 between fence and rectenna.
Evidence behind this: T3, two programme assessments that disagree with each other on one figure.
Scope and limits
SRC-529 says the under-panel value "would depend on design details and location under the panels", so the two may be a maximum-at-edge against a typical-area figure rather than a contradiction; neither document reconciles them. The 2200/240 figures are at the antenna face in orbit and are not exposure figures for anyone but space workers.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.20 / 10: "about 2200 mW/cm2 near the center of the antenna and 240 mW/cm2 near its edge ... If the phase-control system failed, the power beam would diverge and the peak power density would drop to about 0.003 mW/cm2." p.19 / 9: "could be as high as 5 mW/cm2 near the edge of a rectenna panel. However, for most of the area the power density would be less than 1 mW/cm2." SRC-086 p.7-1: "The region directly underneath the rectenna will be exposed to power density levels of between 0.01 and 0.23 mW/cm2, the region between the exclusion fence and the rectenna will be exposed to power density levels of between 0.1 and 1.0 mW/cm2, and the region above the rectenna will be exposed to 23 mW/cm2." All render read.
Basis: mW/cm2
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1008
CLM-1008, Energy Aperture, as of 1980.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-086
- 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-0024The American standard of the day allowed 100 watts per square metre averaged over six minutes. The US had no separate limit for the public...CLM-0036The 1980 American assessment said people living or working near the receiving site, outside its exclusion boundary, would generally be...CLM-0153A 1980 US government environmental assessment argues, without a formal calculation or test, that an aeroplane's metal body would shield...CLM-1005The 1980 assessment explains where the 10 milliwatt limit came from: a heating threshold of 100 divided by a safety factor of ten. It also...CLM-1006In 1980, by the US assessment's figures, the Soviet limit for the general public was two thousand times lower than the American 10...CLM-1007The 1980 assessment worked out that a full American deployment would raise the microwave background everywhere in the country to about...CLM-1009The 1980 programme tested bees because of pollination. Early results showed no effect at the beam's strength, and one preliminary report...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-529
- CLM-1005The 1980 assessment explains where the 10 milliwatt limit came from: a heating threshold of 100 divided by a safety factor of ten. It also...CLM-1006In 1980, by the US assessment's figures, the Soviet limit for the general public was two thousand times lower than the American 10...CLM-1007The 1980 assessment worked out that a full American deployment would raise the microwave background everywhere in the country to about...CLM-1009The 1980 programme tested bees because of pollination. Early results showed no effect at the beam's strength, and one preliminary report...CLM-1010In the US Department of Energy's 1980 assessments the only bird numbers were from quail eggs at a fifth of the beam's peak, which hatched...CLM-1011In 1980 the programme used two different rules to translate its low-frequency experiments to the real beam, one for heating and one for the...CLM-1012In the DOE's 1980 summary the Platteville heating tests showed no effect on the navigation and broadcast radio it listed at the beam's...CLM-1013By 1980 the programme had made the upper ionosphere ripple with a heater running at what it reckoned was four to twelve times the beam's...More on the source page.