That's not the only issue, surely it depends on what form the absorbed energy takes on absorption, or I should say the overall efficiency of going from light to accessible/transferable power ? _______________________________________________ The NYT article seems to say that, at least so far, absorption in an anti-laser goes into heat. But a standard absorber can be designed to produce useful work, as for example a solar cell. The front surface of a solar cell can be etched into tiny pyramids, subwavelength laterally, several wavelengths tall, to gradually shift the refractive index and thus reduce reflection.
-- Gene
I know, but what's the efficiency rating of state-of-the-art solar cells ? Also, probably more relevant, what's the efficiency rating of light->solar->electric heater->heat compared to light->anti-laser->heat ? I realise it's all hypothetical because I'm making the massive assumptions that somehow sunlight could be used with anti-lasers *and* that the method used would be very efficient ;) I suspect that even if possible then converting sunlight to light coherent enough to work with the anti-lasers would be somewhat inefficient anyway.