Sea based rectena

>
> But its unclear why you would want to do this.
>
> I can see one reason. Floating a rectenna on the
> surface makes it very vulnerable to severe weather,
> the first gale
> or hurricance would probably destryo it. It would ne
> niuce if it could be safely underware, but alas that
> just will not
> work.
>

I suspected it was a stupid question, but the above statement is the
reason I was proposing it. For those countries where there is a
severe land shortage, but lot's of open space on the neiboring seas,
how best to use that open space for a rectenna farm.

Perhaps a sea-based rectenna farm could be designed to withstand
stormy seas, but with all of that wave energy, now you're going to
have a rectenna, which is flat on calm water, being three
dimensional, with a loss of receiving area.

If that rectenna farm could be placed below the zone of destructive
wave energy, then an issue becomes one of trade-off between
degradation of the signal versus less destructive forces acting
against the rectenna and more surface area being exposed to
receiving the microwaves by not having to conform to the 3-D
undulations of the waves.

Alas, it was all predicated on a snippet I read that the microwave
frequency was chosen to avoid absorption by rain. Extrapolating,
while a dangerous business, led me to push the limits and presuppose
that an energy wave could penetrate a few meters under water to
a "calmer" rectenna field.

Oh well.