D and E at boundary (dielectrics)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a problem from Kraus's Electromagnetics regarding the electric displacement field D at the boundary of two dielectrics with different relative permittivities. The user initially misapplied the relative permittivities in their calculations, leading to discrepancies in the magnitude of D. After correcting the assignment of permittivities and realizing that the "Snell's Law"-like equation was unnecessary, they successfully derived the correct result for D2 as ε0(6,0,10). The key equations used included the boundary conditions for electric displacement and electric field continuity. The resolution highlights the importance of accurately applying material properties in electromagnetic boundary problems.
mishima
Messages
576
Reaction score
43

Homework Statement


Electromagnetics, Kraus, 4th edition problem 4.7.3
The y-z plane is the boundary between 2 dielectrics of relative permittivities εr = 2 and εr = 5. For negative values of x, E = (3,0,2) V/m. Find D (magnitude and direction) for positive values of x.

Homework Equations


The one that is similar to Snell's Law, not sure of name:
i) ε2 tan (incident angle to normal) = ε1 tan (refracted angle to normal)

which is derived from boundary conditions for 2 dielectrics with the absence of surface charges

ii)D1(normal) = D2(normal)
iii)E1(tangent) = E2(tangent)


The Attempt at a Solution


The x-axis is parallel to the normal of the boundary. So, I first found the angle the electric field vector makes with the x-axis to be 0.588 radians.

incident angle to normal (x-axis) = inverse tan (2/3)

This value was substituted into equation i) along with 5 and 2 for ε1 and ε2 respectively. Solving for the refracted angle, I obtained 1.03037 radians. I believe all of this is correct.

What I am having trouble with is now getting the magnitude of D2. If I just use equations ii) and iii) with pythagorean theorem I get an answer different than the book, which says: D2 = ε0(6,0,10).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I figured it out, I had originally put the relative permittivity of 5 on the negative x side, but making it positive gives the correct result. Also, the "snell's law"-like equation isn't necessary at all.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top