Meaning of the FFT of a Poynting Vector integral, reflection coefficient

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of mean power in a waveguide using the Poynting Vector and its Fourier transform, particularly focusing on the implications of frequency doubling and the relationship to reflection coefficients in the presence of obstacles. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects of wave propagation, impedance mismatches, and methods for analyzing power transmission and reflection in waveguides.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the mean value of the temporal function of the Poynting Vector, noting that it oscillates at double the frequency of the individual fields and questions how this relates to power and frequency when using a Gaussian modulated time function.
  • Another participant asks whether the scenario assumes ideal wave propagation in one direction and references a trigonometric identity related to the square of sine functions.
  • Concerns are raised about reflections from obstacles in the waveguide and how this affects the relationship between output and input power in terms of the reflection coefficient.
  • Discussion includes the concept of analyzing the system as a two-port network, with reflections and transmission coefficients defined in terms of voltages and impedances.
  • One participant suggests using perturbation theory and reciprocity relations to analyze the effects of small obstructions in the waveguide, proposing a method to calculate reflection coefficients through surface integrals.
  • Another participant expresses interest in calculating reflection and transmission coefficients specifically in a rectangular waveguide with a discontinuity, focusing on the total field power rather than mode conversion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the ideality of the waveguide scenario and the implications of reflections and impedance mismatches. There is no consensus on how to best relate the Poynting Vector analysis to the reflection coefficient, and multiple approaches are discussed without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about wave propagation direction, the ideality of the waveguide, and the complexity of calculating transmission and reflection coefficients in the presence of discontinuities. The discussion also touches on the need for more complex calculations in certain scenarios.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying waveguide theory, RF network analysis, and the behavior of electromagnetic fields in various configurations, particularly in the context of power transmission and reflection phenomena.

dimpep
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello,
For calculating the mean power at a specific cross section of a waveguide, one can calculate the mean value of the temporal function of Poynting Vector, P(t), where P(t) is the ExHy-EyHx. Note that I am not talking about phasors or a sinusoidal state. If I integrate over the waveguide cross section and take the mean value over time, I simply obtain the power output. I notice that the P(t) is oscillating with double the frequency of the frequency of each field, and that's normal. If I take the Fourier transform of P(t), I will notice a Peak at the double frequency. How can I relate this to power/frequency term if I want a gaussian modulated time function instead of a plain sine? Can I divide with 2 to obtain the "correct" frequency? Of course this is required to calculate the reflection coefficient of a structure as Pout/Pin as a function of frequency, but this double frequency somewhat confuses me
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Is the case you're discussing ideal in that there is wave propagation only along one direction in the guide?

Also recall ##\sin(t)^2 = (1-\cos(2t))/2##
 
Paul Colby said:
Is the case you're discussing ideal in that there is wave propagation only along one direction in the guide?

Also recall ##\sin(t)^2 = (1-\cos(2t))/2##

It is not ideal as I would have also reflections from an obstacle. My question is how Pout(w)/Pin(w) could be related with reflection coefficient?
 
dimpep said:
It is not ideal as I would have also reflections from an obstacle. My question is how Pout(w)/Pin(w) could be related with reflection coefficient?
In a linear RF network the power reflected is ## P_r(\omega) = |R|^2 P_\text{in}(\omega)## Transmission power can be more tricky when the line impedance changes or is different than the input port. There are some good discussions out there on S parameters and such. Also you might look at "Waveguide Handbook" by M. Marcuvitz. Marcuvitz discusses reflection from many types of waveguide obstacles so it's worth a look.
 
What If I look the system as a two-port network?
Paul Colby said:
In a linear RF network the power reflected is Pr(ω)=|R|2Pin(ω) P_r(\omega) = |R|^2 P_\text{in}(\omega) Transmission power can be more tricky when the line impedance changes or is different than the input port. There are some good discussions out there on S parameters and such. Also you might look at "Waveguide Handbook" by M. Marcuvitz. Marcuvitz discusses reflection from many types of waveguide obstacles so it's worth a look.
 
dimpep said:
What If I look the system as a two-port network?
That's the way I was looking at it. Work a simple example. Connect a 50 ohm cable to a 100 ohm cable. The impedance mismatch will cause a reflection at the interface. The reflection and transmission coefficients are defined in terms of left and right going voltages. The power in each cable is a function of the line impedance of the cable. All fields are continuous at the boundary so,

##1 + R = T##

where 1 is the incident voltage, R the reflected voltage and T the transmitted voltage. Likewise, the current is

##Z_1 - Z_1 R = Z_2 T##

where ##Z_1=50## ohm and ##Z_2=100## ohm. Solve these for R and T.

For more complex problems like discontinuities in waveguides more complex calculations are needed to compute T and R. These include variational methods pioneered by Schwinger during WWII or more computationally intensive things like mode matching. To help more I would need to know more about the problem you're trying to solve.
 
Paul Colby said:
That's the way I was looking at it. Work a simple example. Connect a 50 ohm cable to a 100 ohm cable. The impedance mismatch will cause a reflection at the interface. The reflection and transmission coefficients are defined in terms of left and right going voltages. The power in each cable is a function of the line impedance of the cable. All fields are continuous at the boundary so,

1+R=T1 + R = T

where 1 is the incident voltage, R the reflected voltage and T the transmitted voltage. Likewise, the current is

Z1−Z1R=Z2TZ_1 - Z_1 R = Z_2 T

where Z1=50Z_1=50 ohm and Z2=100Z_2=100 ohm. Solve these for R and T.

For more complex problems like discontinuities in waveguides more complex calculations are needed to compute T and R. These include variational methods pioneered by Schwinger during WWII or more computationally intensive things like mode matching. To help more I would need to know more about the problem you're trying to solve.

Thank you for the answer. I'm trying to calculate the reflection and transmission coefficient in a rectangular waveguide when somewhere in the waveguide there is a discontinuity along z-axis. Waveguide is excited with a specific TE or TM mode and I was thinking how can I use the power at z=0 and at a z position after the discontinuity. I'm not interested in mode conversion at all. Just raw power of the total field
 
What's that in the waveguide, a head? (sorry, couldn't resist: Benny Hill). Well, you can roll your own calculation or you can try to find a similar situation in Marcuvitz. For small obstructions I favor using perturbation theory with the reciprocity relation,

##\iint E_1\cdot J_2 dA = \iint E_2\cdot J_1 dA##

This relation (which is a surface integral) is true quite generally provided the problem doesn't have non-reciprocal or chiral materials. Basically, lumps of ##\mu## and ##\epsilon## and you're good to go. In this expression ##E_k, J_k## are solutions of Maxwell's equations for a driving source currents ##J_k##. The way I would apply this is ##E_1## would be just the unperturbed mode field where we may take ##J_1=\hat{n}\times H_1## for the section of guide one considers. The ##E_2## solution is the reflected and transmitted field your looking for. The surface of integration is the waveguide interior minus the obstructing thing (we'll assume a solder blob on one waveguide wall) Since both fields 1 and 2 obey the boundary conditions every surface other than the waveguide cross section and the fields on the solder blob are zero because tangent E is zero. The fields on the blob may be estimated by the physical optics calculation. Remember that the unperturbed solution is known everywhere and doesn't know or care about the blob. The two waveguide cross sections (you may only need one for reflection.) is chosen far from the obstruction. At this point one may assume,

##E_2(x,y) = R E_-(x,y)##

where ##E_-(x,y)## is a unit amplitude TE mode traveling in the direction of the reflected wave. ##R## is the reflection coefficient which is expressed as a surface integral over the obstruction by evaluating the reciprocity integral.
 
Paul Colby said:
What's that in the waveguide, a head? (sorry, couldn't resist: Benny Hill).
A simple change in either x on y direction (or both)

I took an idea and for sure I have to look at Markuvitz book!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
118
Views
17K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K