ahh see the H actually stands for height in this equation. :P h_x is a length also and purely a function of x.
But hmm perpendicular to H you say... that actually makes a lot more sense to me than any of the other variables if H were a vector, unfortunately its a mean separation, so that couldn't be it could it? I mean H is measured in a particular direction but... can you use that perpendicular symbol relative to something that's not a vector but measured in a particular dimension?
well thinking about it this is a 2 D problem using a radial or cartesian coordinate system. The radial dimensions are expressed by r and the cartesian dimensions are expressed by x= x_x + x_z.
Saying that we are dealing with something perpendicular to r makes no sense to me in the context of the system to be honest. Since it has cartesian symmetry but no radial symmetry. Although I could be missing somthing since the equation comes from a fourier tranformation which I don't actually understand...
(a fourier transform of the system
[tex]\epsilon(i f, r) = \epsilon_2(i f)[/tex] when [tex]H + h_2(x) \leq z < + \infty[/tex]
[tex]\epsilon(i f, r) = 0[/tex] when [tex]h_1(x) < z < H + h_2(x)[/tex]
[tex]\epsilon(i f, r) = \epsilon_1(i f)[/tex] when [tex]- \infty < z \leq h_1(x)[/tex]
Saying its perpendicular to x is pointless. So I'm inclined to believe its either perpendicular to x_x or x_z. But which I don't know... :/ Nah actually though I bet if I actually understood the fourier transform I'd understand what that q is perpendicular to :/ Can anyone help please? :(