How do you relay EM wave parameters to Transmission line parameters?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between electromagnetic (EM) wave parameters and transmission line parameters, specifically the propagation constant. It highlights that while both plane wave and transmission line equations yield similar propagation constants, the underlying physics and engineering representations differ. The physics equations involve permeability and permittivity, while the engineering equations use inductance and capacitance per unit length. Participants suggest deriving relationships between L, C, ε, and μ to clarify the connection. Ultimately, the discussion concludes with a participant expressing understanding of the relationship after further exploration.
yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
294
I am studying EM wave and transmission lines. I see both derive equations for propagation constant \gamma:

Plane wave velocity is 1/\sqrt{\mu\epsilon} and \eta = \sqrt{\mu/\epsilon}

Transmission line velocity is 1/\sqrt{LC} and Z0=\sqrt{L/C}.

From that the book just to say the velocity of both are the same and \mu \epsilon = LC

I see they both are propagation constant, but I don't see they are the same! Can anyone explain to me how they relate together?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first pair of equations is the physics representation, using the permeability of the medium per unit length and the permitivity per unit length. The latter two equations are the engineering equivalents, for example in a coaxial transmission line, where L and C are the inductance per unit length and capacitance per unit length. As an exercise, calculate L and C for RG-8 cable, with the velocity of propagation equal to about 2/3 the velocity of light, and Z = 50 ohms (impedance of free space = 377 ohms).
 
Bob S said:
The first pair of equations is the physics representation, using the permeability of the medium per unit length and the permitivity per unit length. The latter two equations are the engineering equivalents, for example in a coaxial transmission line, where L and C are the inductance per unit length and capacitance per unit length. As an exercise, calculate L and C for RG-8 cable, with the velocity of propagation equal to about 2/3 the velocity of light, and Z = 50 ohms (impedance of free space = 377 ohms).

Thanks for the reply.

I know the result is true, I am not question the validity of the equation, just I cannot find the physics to link the two. I can derive the formulas of the transmission line and plane wave and arrive the equations in the book. Just that the book simply claim the two propagation constants are the same...WHY? What is the equation linking L,C of unit length to \epsilon and \mu?

Can you point me to material that link the two? Not just the Helmholtz's equation or the general wave equations that give the propagation constant.
 
yungman said:
I know the result is true, I am not question the validity of the equation, just I cannot find the physics to link the two. I can derive the formulas of the transmission line and plane wave and arrive the equations in the book. Just that the book simply claim the two propagation constants are the same...WHY? What is the equation linking L,C of unit length to \epsilon and \mu?

Take your derivations for L and C per unit length, form the ratios and products as per the expressions for the propagation velocity and impedance, and cancel out all the 2 pi's etc. You should get the physics expressions.
 
Bob S said:
Take your derivations for L and C per unit length, form the ratios and products as per the expressions for the propagation velocity and impedance, and cancel out all the 2 pi's etc. You should get the physics expressions.

Thanks, I think I got it.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top