Power reflectoin coefficient of EM Radiation on a good conductor

Plutoniummatt
Messages
45
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh258/Plutoniummatt/Untitled-1-2.jpg
Untitled-1-2.jpg


Homework Equations



Pwr Ref Coeff:

(Z'-Z)/(Z'+Z) all squared

I maybe made a mistake but i can't spot it. And its bugging me
I did square the whole thing afterward for the power...but i just have a sign error

The Attempt at a Solution



http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh258/Plutoniummatt/PhysicsBSupervision7.jpg

Please note that in negating one of my terms I underlined the wrong things, I did not negate u0/e0. but everything else in the demoninator because they are much smaller
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know how to do the problem, but I do know that you made a mistake when you multiplied the numerator by the complex conjugate of the denominator. The i's don't go away for the numerator.
 
JaWiB said:
I don't know how to do the problem, but I do know that you made a mistake when you multiplied the numerator by the complex conjugate of the denominator. The i's don't go away for the numerator.



Yep I realized that shortly after posting...It still doesn't give the right answer
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top