Perhaps you should study up on dialectric constants of materials Hawk, Also penetration depth of wavelength, availibility and tuning of each individual klyston to its very own specific criteria as each one even with the same model # requires a slightly different procedure and requires a instruction book for tuning each individual klystron. Seems like a lot of trouble to add to low efficiency and high cost.By the way your math seems to include almost 4 gigahertz at 1475 Megahertz above 2.45 gigahertz. Can you explain why 4 gigahertz would be more effective on hydrocarbons than 3.9 gigahertz. Your claims of 4 to 18 gigahertz with 1200 different frequencies for hydrocarbons is as credible as the Hawk 10 Hawk. AS tires are the hydrocarbon of choice with GRC now why can I process one with less electrical power than GRC can at a whole lot less capitol cost and higher efficiency? I looked up the efficiencies on klystrons, The 1.6 KW unit you told me about was 35% efficient, At considerably higher power efficiency approached 40% At the highest power available 60% efficiency. Are you saying a few gigahertz difference in frequency will offset 20 to 30% efficiency losses.I don't think so and niether does anyone else big scammer.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
