Griffin stabs us in the back regarding Global warming.

> Your comment on cellphones is quite right, they are
> using more and more of the bandwidth in the 2 GHz band
> (correct me if I'm wrong) that can easily penetrate
> the atmosphere, even in moderate rain.

This is an interesting point - and possibly a stumbling block in the SSPS
design. Mobile phones are short range devices. They only need to reach a few
hundred meters to the nearest mast after all. Anything that causes
interference outside of that range is not going to affect them. Their
apparent successor, wireless computing (IP phones etc) is similarly a short
range technology. This means a comparatively weak transmission signal -
which is potentially vulnerable to SSPS interference.

However...

The signal from a SSPS is going to be very constant. There is already
technology to send very weak network signals over live mains wiring. If we
can filter out the 120/140V AC and listen to the computer messages, there's
no reason a mobile couldn't do the same. An SSPS signal is also going to be
coming from a very fixed direction. It's fairly simple to filter on this
basis too.

The original plans for SSPS say that planes shouldn't fly through the beams.
It said nothing about the beams interfering with radio communication.

A military commander might be interested in spending money on SSPS research,
if it might give him or her a weapon that can turn off his enemy's
communications. Even over short range though such jammer are horribly power
intensive, so I'm not sure it will be an option for them, or an issue for
us.

Finally, the SSPS will be designed to beam as much of its power as possible
onto the rectenna. Any energy that goes elsewhere is wasted. Given the
levels of transmission usually banded about, I can't see the wasted signal
as having as much power to have the effect Thor fears it might.

> exactly how the spectrum is allocated worldwide, but I
> think the FCC auctions off portions of the various
> bands to the highest bidder, reserving some for
> military and other agencies.

Pretty much the same thing world wide - except that where possible the
agencies negotiate with each other for common standards.

> However note that if say
> Pakistan put up a SSPS and beamed the power down to a
> Rectannae Farm 30 miles outside of it's capital. That
> SSPS's frequency would be 10^8 to 10^12 times more
> powerful than cellphones,

100,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000?
I assume you're not talking about the capital?

Even if they're accurate for right next to the rectenna, that doesn't
matter. The important relationship would be mobile phone range in comparison
to distance from the rectenna's edge. If mobile phones will work reliably
500m from the edge, then it probably won't be an issue for the
telecommunication companies.

John