Plotting the Poynting vector of a radiating electric dipole [matlab]

[PhDeezNutz]

Much better, the problem was that I wasn't fixing the axis limits and it was changing with each iteration in the for loop (despite the previous gif not showing it, it was apparent when I saw it rendering). I set the axis limits in stone and then proceeded to render.

As for "a way to pass a vector of values to a function that only accepts scalars (as the fourth argument)". I did the following. for i2 = 1:length(Srange)
isosurface(X,Y,Z,Smag2,Srange(i2))
hold on
xlim([-2400,2400])
ylim([-2400,2400])
zlim([-2400,2400])
xlabel('X-axis')
ylabel('Y-axis')
zlabel('Z-axis') title('Poynting Level Surfaces of Radiating Dipole') end

This was nested inside another for loop where Smag2 was defined.

Hopefully that took care of it.

The only thing left to do is take slices. Hopefully when I do this I will see more colors.

How does it look?

 

[TSny]

Looks good. You're definitely making progress.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I took a slice of my animation so I'm happy with that.. I'm obviously getting a dipole radiation pattern and more colors as expected but it's not quite satisfactory. I need more colors and variation, the far field is washing together as one color and I need to fix this.

and my goodness does it take long to render a 5 second movie.

Edit: tried making the axis limits less in the view and it just became more pixelated. Not good.

Edit2: Hopefully we can solve all of this by post 70, this problem is getting tiresome. And I'm sure you're getting tired of this problem as well. But again, you've been of tremendous help and I can't thank you enough.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

@TSny

more progress!

We can do it, we're almost there!

 

[TSny]

@TSny
more progress!
We can do it, we're almost there!

Very nice!

 

[PhDeezNutz]

@TSny

I think I've got it completely

 

[TSny]

Excellent!

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Excellent!

Thank you again for all your help! Onto the quadrupole! I'll start a new thread when I'm in a position to do so. (Gotta catch up in my classes).

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Would it be alright If I continued the quest to create a quadrupole animation in this thread for the time being?

I don't think I have enough substance to start a new thread yet.

Here's my progress

There are some things wrong with this picture. (please zoom in if need be). I am happy that we appear to have a 4 lobe pattern though.

1) Wave fronts/level surfaces of the Poynting vector seem to be pointing inwards instead of outwards. I could try negating my fields (but that would be really contrived)

2) There's not enough contrast and there could be a million reasons for this.

3) For whatever reason an animation is not rendering in MATLAB and I'm getting an error about how all frames aren't the same size...which is ridiculous considering I more or less copy and pasted my format from the dipole script which did not have this problem.

As a note: I didn't use the fields that Jackson used but rather my own expressions, but they do corroborate Jackson to first order. Jackson uses the approximation that $\nabla \times \approx \hat{n} \times$ in the far field which I think is ridiculous.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I'm trying to do the oscillating electric quadrupole. I suspect that I forgot magnetic dipole terms. Does the oscillating electric quadrupole necessarily produce a magnetic dipole moment?

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Please zoom in (I apologize for the scale, I'm working on it) to see that the wave is propagating outwards but the level surfaces (or rather cross sections of level surfaces) appear to be pointing inwards instead of outwards.

I'm off by a phase factor of $i$ somewhere in my purely spatial dependencies because when I multiply by $e^{i \omega t}$ instead of $e^{- i omega t}$ I get the wave propagating outwards. Which runs completely opposite of what is supposed to happen.

This gif/program needs a lot of work.

Summary

1) Off by a phase factor somewhere in my 30 pages of derivations

2) Level surfaces are pointing in instead of out

maybe the 2 problems are related to each other.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Has 6 loves instead of 4 it seems. awful.

 

[TSny]

Would it be alright If I continued the quest to create a quadrupole animation in this thread for the time being?

That's ok with me. But, one of the advisors or mentors might shut this thread if he/she feels that it's becoming too lengthy.

As a note: I didn't use the fields that Jackson used but rather my own expressions, but they do corroborate Jackson to first order. Jackson uses the approximation that $\nabla \times \approx \hat{n} \times$ in the far field which I think is ridiculous.

$\nabla \times \approx ik\hat{n} \times$ is a good approximation in the radiation zone when applied to the complex valued expression for vector potential $\vec A$.

Are you trying to get expressions that are valid in the "intermediate zone" as well as in the radiation zone. If so, I imagine the expressions will be pretty lengthy.

What are you taking to be the charge distribution that defines the quadrupole? That is, what are you taking for the components of the quadrupole moment tensor, $Q_{ij}$?

 

[PhDeezNutz]

That's ok with me. But, one of the advisors or mentors might shut this thread if he/she feels that it's becoming too lengthy.
$\nabla \times \approx ik\hat{n} \times$ is a good approximation in the radiation zone when applied to the complex valued expression for vector potential $\vec A$.

Are you trying to get expressions that are valid in the "intermediate zone" as well as in the radiation zone. If so, I imagine the expressions will be pretty lengthy.

What are you taking to be the charge distribution that defines the quadrupole? That is, what are you taking for the components of the quadrupole moment tensor, $Q_{ij}$?

Alright I'll start a new one as soon as I get enough material to do so. I'm trying to get one in the intermediate and near zone as well. And I realized my attempt to do so fails badly, I went back and looked over my work and conflated spherical basis with cartesian.

Allow me to explain:

I Believe these are correct.

I also believe the following is true

$\vec{E} = \frac{i}{k\sqrt{\mu \epsilon}} \nabla \times \vec{B}$ is true assuming harmonic fields.
Now computing the latter expression for the former is where I'm having lots of difficulty. I incorrectly assumed in my derivation that $Q\vec{r}$ was a spherical construction as opposed to a cartesian construction. So I must convert...a lot of work ahead of me.

I assumed there charges

$+q$ @ $(d,0,0)$
$-q$ @ $(0,0,d)$
$+q$ @ $(-d,0,0)$
$-q$ @ $(0,0,-d)$

I think that gives us the only nonzero quadrupole moments

$Q_{11} = 6qd^2$

$Q_{22} = -6qd^2$

using the traceless quadrupole definition.

But truth be told I messed up long before I put the Quadrupole moments into my program.

 

[TSny]

I Believe these are correct.

View attachment 257575

I'm not familiar with these expressions. But I have no reason to doubt them.

I also believe the following is true

$\vec{E} = \frac{i}{k\sqrt{\mu \epsilon}} \nabla \times \vec{B}$ is true assuming harmonic fields.

I think this is correct.

I assumed there charges

$+q$ @ $(d,0,0)$
$-q$ @ $(0,0,d)$
$+q$ @ $(-d,0,0)$
$-q$ @ $(0,0,-d)$

OK. So, you have four charges on the corners of a square with alternating signs of the charges as you go around the perimeter of the square. You placed the charges in the x-z plane.

I think that gives us the only nonzero quadrupole moments

$Q_{11} = 6qd^2$

$Q_{22} = -6qd^2$

using the traceless quadrupole definition.

With the charges in the x-z plane, wouldn't $Q_{22} = 0$ and $Q_{33} = -6qd^2$?

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I'm not familiar with these expressions. But I have no reason to doubt them.I think this is correct.

OK. So, you have four charges on the corners of a square with alternating signs of the charges as you go around the perimeter of the square. You placed the charges in the x-z plane.

With the charges in the x-z plane, wouldn't $Q_{22} = 0$ and $Q_{33} = -6qd^2$?

I meant to put the negative charges on the y-axis. My bad for the typo.

Anyway I used my expression for$\vec{B}$, used the curl function in matlab, multiplied by the appropriate constant, took the cross product, plotted the vector field and got this

I'll keep working on it. This is not exactly what I want but it has enough of what I want to make me think that I made a small mistake somewhere.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I'm going to test Jackson's formulas in MATLAB before I try implementing my own just to compare. Progress I think.

Had to project the vector field radially to get rid of the vectors "in between the lobes" and then make isosurfaces.

Edit: nvm I used the wrong power of $r$ in the denominator.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Using my own formulas I'm getting something peculiar. My intent was to plot level surfaces of the Poynting vector for the radiating electric quadrupole at time $t=0$. It seems like I got an inverted level surface of an octupole pattern.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I feel like this is progress.

I instead plotting Poynting vector magnitude level surfaces I plotted level surfaces of the power radiated per unit solid angle.

$\frac{dP}{d \Omega} = \frac{1}{2} Re\left( r^2 \hat{n} \cdot \vec{E} \times {H^*}\right)$

Edit: I used my own formula for the vector potential on this one and let MATLAB compute $\vec{H}$ and $\vec{E}$

 

[TSny]

That looks like it could be it!

 

[PhDeezNutz]

That looks like it could be it!

Thank you very much for your words of encouragement! They mean a great deal to me!

 

[TSny]

I tried cranking out expressions for the E and B fields. Pretty messy! I doubt if I got it all correct. If you want to compare, here are some contour plots of |S| for the xy plane, the xz plane, and a vertical plane that makes a 45^o angle with the x and y axes.

Here's a 3D contour plot for one value of |S|. The figure on the right is a closer look at the center region.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Weird, I only get what you get when I project the vector field radially. Making the vectors in between the lobes essentially disappear.

But I'm probably wrong.

Edit: I'm having considerable trouble animating.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Ever been so wrong that you were close to being right? That's how I feel right now.

My goodness gracious the quadrupole is more complicated than the dipole.

 

[TSny]

Looks like your last plot is for a region that is quite a bit less than a wavelength from the origin. The fields vary rapidly with position in this region. The "horns" along the coordinate axes correspond to the holes poking through your surface in post #79. I also get the horns as shown below. This shows a contour sheet of one particular value of $|\vec {S}|$. The region plotted is within $\lambda/5$ of the origin. $\vec S$ is zero for points on the coordinate axes.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Looks like your last plot is for a region that is quite a bit less than a wavelength from the origin. The fields vary rapidly with position in this region. The "horns" along the coordinate axes correspond to the holes poking through your surface in post #79. I also get the horns as shown below. This shows a contour sheet of one particular value of $|\vec {S}|$. The region plotted is within $\lambda/5$ of the origin. $\vec S$ is zero for points on the coordinate axes.

View attachment 257724

I basically lost a bunch of what I did because I edited it without keeping record of what I did. This is what I've gotten back to. I'm going to try increasing $k = \frac{2 \pi}{ \lambda}$ in my program to get a shorter wavelength. ( I think that statement makes sense...my brain is fried)

Edit: and I get this

 

[PhDeezNutz]

If only I could get the purple surfaces to close. It conceal the rest of the level surfaces but it would get us the characteristic shape we want.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Top view, I feel like those level surfaces should be pointing outwards.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Part of me thinks that it's MATLAB connecting level surfaces that shouldn't really be connected.

 

[TSny]

If only I could get the purple surfaces to close. It conceal the rest of the level surfaces but it would get us the characteristic shape we want.

They purple surfaces might close if you plot out to a greater distance. To get the purple surface to close so that you see all of the "central blob", you need to plot out to a distance of approximately one wavelength.

I notice that you have a factor of $10^{11}$ for your tick marks on the axes. I find it much more convenient to choose the unit of distance to equal one wavelength. By letting $k = 2 \pi$ and $\omega = 2\pi$, the unit of length is one wavelength and the unit of time is one period of oscillation of the source. (In some of my earlier plots, such as in post #82, I let $k = 1$ which made $\lambda$ equal about 6.3 units of distance.)