Solar Power Satellites

> From: bobunf
> I enter into a discussion

No, you didn't. Your first post declared the concept flatly impossible. And
now you're avoiding any debate, and trying to excuse your inability to
provide any evidence at all, by hiding behind crodile tears at very accurate
descrriptions of your education and ability to do research.

> But, if you insist, I too can insult:

Insult all you want, but I have *also* suplied *evidence* that many of your
numbers and beliefs are wrong.

> "Microwave OVENS regularly reach 60% efficiency."
> Real world. Nothing like it.

Try compairing apples to apples.
Compairing the total effency of turning 120AC into DC, then into microwaves,
and then into thermal energy does not compair with the kind of transmitter
needed for an SSPS. You're inserting two additional energy convertions. Of
course the overall effency will be lower.

> "converting the energy beam back into electricity. Closer to 90%
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993STIN...9411357B
> As I said, closer to 90%"
>
> Did you actually read the article? The 90% refers to a theoretical
> maximum. The actual experimental results (in the lab) were under
> 70%.

Funny that... A search of that page indicates that despite the presence of
the abstract, the actual article isn't actually present. By contrast this is
what an abstract looks like when an article has been scanned. Not the green
text:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992lbsa.conf..459K
Since you have apparently found it elsewhere, would you care to either
provide a link or upload a copy to the group's file section?

In anycase, it's clear from other abstracts that 70% is not the cast iron
upper limit you seem to believe it is:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MiOTL...6..655T

> Real world, even in a lab; really inconvenient.

In the real world, not being able to provide a shread of evidence to back up
your claims is also rather inconvenient. And you've provided no evvidence at
all. And I repeat my accusation that have provided no evidence because you
have none.

John