At the frequency of the 35 GHz atmospheric window, for a given amount of power transmitted, the amount of land needed would appear to be less as compared to the 2.45 GHz case. This would make building rectennas near populated areas (where the power is to be used, but where less land is available) more feasible. Using the same 6 GW transmitted as in the case of 2.45 GHz, the diffraction pattern was calculated for reception at the equator, and is shown in Figure 11. Note that the width of the 88% capture area has decreased to 0.7 km (i.e., by a factor of 2.45/35), so that only about l/200th as much land is apparently needed. However, due to the increased height of the secondary diffraction maxima, the 0.1 mW/cm2 exclusion zone would be a distance of about 3.3 kilometers from the center. Thus, the savings in land is not as large as anticipated, though it might be possible that using an optimized gain taper might reduce the land area in the 35 GHz case. Furthermore, the assumption that the same 6 GW can be concentrated into a
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==