Prerequisites for Fundamentals of Applied Electromagnetics by Fawwaz T. Ulaby

[bigmike94]

I would like to tackle E&M from a more applied perspective, my maths background is calculus 1, 2 & 3, basic differential equations, basic linear algebra etc. physics background i have completed intro physics that involved very basic circuits etc but nothing major in the sense of applied electromagnetism, also i did a slightly more advanced small E&M book called students guide to maxwells equations.

So what would i need to learn (apart from phasors) to be able to tackle this book, some people online say it is beginner friendly, the preface mentions being a 3rd year electrical engineering student, which i am not.

 

[dlgoff]

I found E&M very difficult and would not have passed it with just an intro to physics; that is, being able to work all the problem sets. Your math history is good and you'll probably be using all of that in the E&M course.

 

[berkeman]

Searching this book at Amazon gets you to a "Look Inside" option:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0133356817/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Where you can view the Table of Contents. Can you tell from that (or the Preface maybe -- Edit: the Preface does not seem to be included in this Look Inside, unfortunately) what-all would be prerequisites for self-learning from this book?

 

[berkeman]

Also, have you checked with your local library to see if they can get this book on an inter-library loan so that you can look through it to see if you want to buy it?

 

[bigmike94]

I found E&M very difficult and would not have passed it with just an intro to physics; that is, being able to work all the problem sets. Your math history is good and you'll probably be using all of that in the E&M course.

It’s a little more difficult to build up an intuition compared to mechanics isn’t it. You can almost picture every detail of the situation when reading a mechanics text, I think with E&M that might come with time, hopefully, there definitely seems to be more of a reliance on analogies, like picturing fields as flowing liquid etc etc.

It makes me very apprehensive about starting quantum, I have heard many say there is isn’t much intuition there.

 

[bigmike94]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0133356817/?tag=pfamazon01-20
View attachment 318905

Where you can view the Table of Contents. Can you tell from that (or the Preface maybe -- Edit: the Preface does not seem to be included in this Look Inside, unfortunately) what-all would be prerequisites for self-learning from this book?

View attachment 318906

Thank you, I actually had a quick look at the online version of the book to see the contents etc. i have just started reading Griffiths electrodynamics but I do like applications of physical concepts, I could maybe read Griffiths first.

This is the problem when you like both physics and engineering.. picking what book first.

 

[berkeman]

I actually had a quick look at the online version of the book to see the contents etc.

Were you able to see the Preface with that view? If so, did it hint at any prerequisite courses that were assumed?

Another approach would be to find a university course that uses this textbook, and look at the prerequisites for that course.

 

[Frabjous]

Here’s the front matter
https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/5/013519900X.pdf
The question is if you know enough circuits.

If you haven’t decided on a book, you might check out Haus and Melcher which is downloadable at MITOCW.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/res-6-001-electromagnetic-fields-and-energy-spring-2008/

 

[dlgoff]

This is the problem when you like both physics and engineering

Thank goodness my University had Engineering Physics. :)

 

[berkeman]

Here’s the front matter
https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/5/013519900X.pdf
The question is if you know enough circuits.

Thanks, that's super helpful.

Looks like a good book with good support.

 

[malawi_glenn]

You can always try to read it right now. If you get stuck somewhere or do not understand something, look it up elsewhere. If you have to do this "too many" times, you might wanna study something else first (like Griffiths)

 

[bigmike94]

You can always try to read it right now. If you get stuck somewhere or do not understand something, look it up elsewhere. If you have to do this "too many" times, you might wanna study something else first (like Griffiths)

Thank you for the advice. So would you say that Griffiths is less advanced or its at a similar level but just covers stuff in more detail?

 

[Frabjous]

Thank you for the advice. So would you say that Griffiths is less advanced or its at a similar level but just covers stuff in more detail?

They are about the same level, but have different emphasis.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Maybe Morins EM book is good too, even easier than griffiths. Depends on what you get stuck on

 

[bigmike94]

Maybe Morins EM book is good too, even easier than griffiths. Depends on what you get stuck on

I’ve had a few people recommend me that book, heard good things of it. I think, as I have the book on my shelf, I’m going to read through Griffiths first then go for an applied textbook

 

[MidgetDwarf]

It’s a little more difficult to build up an intuition compared to mechanics isn’t it. You can almost picture every detail of the situation when reading a mechanics text, I think with E&M that might come with time, hopefully, there definitely seems to be more of a reliance on analogies, like picturing fields as flowing liquid etc etc.

It makes me very apprehensive about starting quantum, I have heard many say there is isn’t much intuition there.

The hard thing about EM, is the mathematics. Many people have a poor understanding of Vector Calculus, or are exposed to it the first upper division EM course. So they do not understand what's going on, just know how to calculate. So learning the mathematics coupled with the physics, presents double the difficulty.

I would say you spend a lot of time deciding xyz book is better. A previous poster mentioned that reading the book, working through it, getting stuck, work through an easier book, then proceed. Is sound advice. You waste time by making these silly threads all the time, and never follow the advice. So why post the same type of question?

At the minimum, you need to understand Vector Calculus at the level of Mardsen. In order to proceed in Engineering/Physics. You have been recommended good textbooks in another thread.

 

[bigmike94]

The hard thing about EM, is the mathematics. Many people have a poor understanding of Vector Calculus, or are exposed to it the first upper division EM course. So they do not understand what's going on, just know how to calculate. So learning the mathematics coupled with the physics, presents double the difficulty.

I would say you spend a lot of time deciding xyz book is better. A previous poster mentioned that reading the book, working through it, getting stuck, work through an easier book, then proceed. Is sound advice. You waste time by making these silly threads all the time, and never follow the advice. So why post the same type of question?

At the minimum, you need to understand Vector Calculus at the level of Mardsen. In order to proceed in Engineering/Physics. You have been recommended good textbooks in another thread.

How can you presume I don’t follow the advice. I usually do, I purchased and have started to read Griffiths E&M as it was recommended. But this is an engineering post not physics as my previous posts where in. Most people on the engineering thread seem to be a lot more friendly and offer sound advice without sounding like they’re stuck up their own arse like on the physics thread.

I have never posted this question before, the question is asking prerequisites for a specific book.

And what do you mean wasting my time? I study for hours every day and it takes a few minutes to make a post. The only thing wasting my time ironically is replying to you.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I have never posted this question before, the question is asking prerequisites for a specific book.

Basically a month ago https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-sr-is-needed-for-purcell-and-morin.1046993/

Have you completed Morins EM book? Or did you end up getting Griffiths instead?

 

[bigmike94]

Basically a month ago https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-sr-is-needed-for-purcell-and-morin.1046993/

Have you completed Morins EM book? Or did you end up getting Griffiths instead?

I fully stand by what I said. I have never posted the same question, one is asking if SR is needed for purcells book and the other is asking the prerequisites for an applied E&M book.

I got Griffiths instead as I found a cheap Asian copy on Amazon.

I ask questions on here as I mostly self study so I don’t have any friends studying physics or professors i can talk to when I please.

I don’t know what else to say apart from if I was the owner of this forum I would welcome as many questions as possible even if there’s only a slight difference in questions as then you’ll get a more specific answer.

 

[Frabjous]

There is a bad habit at PF of people piling on. I believe the issue has been addressed. We should all try to be friendlier.

 

[jasonRF]

I think, as I have the book on my shelf, I’m going to read through Griffiths first then go for an applied textbook

That is a reasonable approach. Griffiths has better coverage of statics and fields in matter than most applied texts, and I believe learning radiation from Grifffiths gives extra insight beyond just learning about it in the context of antennas. Finally, Griffiths talks about field momentum while most applied books omit it.

The extra topics you will learn from applied texts are primarily transmission lines, waveguides, cavity resonators, and antennas. You will find that engineers use the concept of impedance a lot, and that many books are written with the assumption that the reader knows at least elementary linear AC circuit theory using phasors (if your intro physics course had a strong section on AC circuits that might be enough?). If you have already worked through Griffiths then you certainly will know plenty of math for the undergraduate applied books.

 

[bigmike94]

That is a reasonable approach. Griffiths has better coverage of statics and fields in matter than most applied texts, and I believe learning radiation from Grifffiths gives extra insight beyond just learning about it in the context of antennas. Finally, Griffiths talks about field momentum while most applied books omit it.

The extra topics you will learn from applied texts are primarily transmission lines, waveguides, cavity resonators, and antennas. You will find that engineers use the concept of impedance a lot, and that many books are written with the assumption that the reader knows at least elementary linear AC circuit theory using phasors (if your intro physics course had a strong section on AC circuits that might be enough?). If you have already worked through Griffiths then you certainly will know plenty of math for the undergraduate applied books.

Thank you, that’s a brilliant answer, I’ll keep plodding on with Griffiths for now then go for an applied textbook

 

[yucheng]

There is a bad habit at PF of people piling on.

what do you mean by pulling on?

 

[Frabjous]

what do you mean by pulling on?

Piling on. To join others in criticizing someone. While an individual criticism might be appropriate, the sum total of the criticisms is innappropriate. It has a negative connotation.