Planar wave normally incident on dielectric boundary

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the reflected time average power flux (P_reflected) of a parallel polarized planar wave incident on a dielectric boundary, with specific conditions regarding conductivity (σ) and permittivity (ε). The user successfully derives P_reflected as 100/9 w/m^2 using the relationship between incident and reflected electric fields, but struggles to incorporate the significance of the ratio σ/(ω*ε_0) in the calculations. They note that while varying σ impacts η_2, the problem appears to lack clarity on how to utilize the given conditions effectively. The user questions whether the problem is poorly posed or intended as a trick, particularly since only the real part of permittivity is provided. The discussion highlights a potential oversight in addressing the implications of conductivity on the reflection coefficient in different conductivity scenarios.
cfitzU2
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
PROBLEM: I am asked to consider a parallel polarized planar wave with frequency ω is normally incident on a dielectric boundary. The incident time average power flux P_i = 100 w/m^2. The first medium is free space and the second has vacuum permeability but ε=4ε_0. We are also given that the medium is characterized by conductivity σ.

I am then asked to find the reflected time average power flux P_reflected in two cases

(i) σ/(ω*ε_0)<<1 and (ii) σ/(ω*ε_0)>>1


My problem is that, while performing the calculation I see no use for the quantity in question, namely, σ/(ω*ε_0)...


ATTEMPT: I am able to find the reflected time average power flux using P_i = (1/2*η)(E_i)^2 = 100 w/m^2 with P_reflected = (1/2*η)(E_r)^2 and E_r = ρE_i where ρ=(η_2 - η)/(η+η_2).

This is especially simple after noting that η_2 = (1/2)η

The calculation leads to P_reflected = 100/9 w/m^2

I see no opportunity to consider how varying the conductivity changes that number... I realize that as σ gets big η_2 must go to zero... but we are given a fixed ε=4*ε_0

Am I missing something or is this a poorly posed (or trick) problem??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that the permitivity can me complex, but only the real part has been given. Remember that \eta is described interms of: \eta = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\textbf{ε}}}, where \epsilon is actually the complex permitivity.

There is plenty potential to use \frac{\sigma}{\omega * \epsilon_{0}} &lt;&lt; 1 and \frac{\sigma}{\omega * \epsilon_{0}} &gt;&gt; 1 cases
 
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