Question on equation for instantaneous E field along the transmission medium.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the representation of the electric field E in the context of Poynting vectors and transmission lines. The original poster notes a discrepancy between their derived equation and the standard equation presented in textbooks, particularly regarding the treatment of the phase angle of the incident electric field E0. They emphasize that while some texts suggest ignoring the phase angle, this is problematic as it is essential for accurate calculations in the spatial domain. The poster seeks clarification on why textbooks assert that the amplitude of E at z=0 is always real, despite the complexity of E0. Ultimately, they express frustration over the inability to reconcile their findings with established literature.
yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
294
I am studying Poynting vectors. I run into question that I don't see any good explanation in all the books I have. All the books claimed
E_{(z,t)} =E_{(z=0)} Re[e_{j(wt-\beta z)} + \Gamma e_{j(wt+\beta z)}]

But sinse E0 is complex so this is what I have and is not equal to what the book gives. In fact the Electromagnetic by Ulaby actually say ignor the phase angle of E0! Below is what I have:
a44s9e.jpg


Obviously the answer does not agree. This is particularly obvious when working on Poynting vectors. Please tell me what do I miss in this whole thing.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Once you go into phasor domain, all information is just relative time. Therefore you can assume your Incident Phase Angle is zero. As well as that I believe that your book is assuming that maximum amplitude occurs at z=0(From your Latex Code). These two assumptions seem to be apparent in line 1, but not in line 3 of your derivations.
 
Last edited:
ravioli said:
Once you go into phasor domain, all information is just relative time. Therefore you can assume your Incident Phase Angle is zero. As well as that I believe that your book is assuming that maximum amplitude occurs at z=0(From your Latex Code). These two assumptions seem to be apparent in line 1, but not in line 3 of your derivations.

But the book of Ulaby even expressly said that the incident E field at z=0 is complex and it has an angle. It just said they are going to ignor it! Ulaby simply say don't look at the phase angle of the incident E field and Cheng just ignor it.

A phasor strip the time domain \omegat out, but the phase angle of incident E field is absolute a spatial domain and cannot be ignor. The solution from the two cannot be made equal to justify that.

I spent 2 days deriving the formulas and just can not make the two agree. I don't see how they can ignor the phase angle unless the incident E field at z=0 is always at maximum which is cosine(0)=1 like you suggested! But what is the justification that the forward traveling E field is ALWAYS maximum at z=0? I have modify my original equation drawing above, please take a look again.
 
Last edited:
If you were given an oscilloscope, could you distinguish between the incident wave having a phase shift of 0 degrees, 10 degrees, 20 degrees, 30 degrees...?
 
ravioli said:
If you were given an oscilloscope, could you distinguish between the incident wave having a phase shift of 0 degrees, 10 degrees, 20 degrees, 30 degrees...?

No! This is EM wave, not the voltage and current phasor in transmission. They are the same though, the same question apply on voltage phasor at z=0 at the load. A directional coupler can separate the incident and reflected. But getting to the z=0 is easy to talk, impossible to get to!
 
I have been looking up quite a few books today on both Plane Wave phasor and transmission line traveling wave phasor. All the books specified that the amplitude at z=0 is REAL. There is not phase angle. If the amplitude is real, then I agree with the book!

Can anyone give me a conclusive theory why the amplitude at z=0 is always real? The only book that claimed the value can be complex, that is Ulaby book.
 
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top