Ulaby equation 9.47a: perpendicular polarization distance definition

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter yungman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Reflection
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
2 replies · 1K views
yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
Attached is a scanned of the page in question. This is regarding to Perpendicularly polarized plane wave. in equation (9.47a) at the lower left corner it is the distance ##x_i## to the origin.
[tex]x_i=x\sin\theta_i+z\cos\theta_i\;\hbox {(9.47a)}[/tex]

That is not a distance. distance of ##|\vec x_i|=\sqrt{x^2 \sin^2\theta_i+z^2\cos^2\theta_i}##, not ##x_i=x\sin\theta_i+z\cos\theta_i##.

Actually ##\hat x_i=\hat x\sin\theta_i+\hat z\cos\theta_i\;\hbox { and }\vec x_i=\hat x|x_i|\sin\theta_i+\hat z|x_i|\cos\theta_i##

Am I missing something because it's Memorial Day this weekend?! Did I read the book wrong?
 

Attachments

  • E&H L.jpg
    E&H L.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 437
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I dislike the way this was presented in this book.

Consider the incident wave like this

[itex]e^{-j\, \vec{k}_i\, \cdot \, \vec{r}}[/itex]

now if we factor out the magnitude of the wave vector so that [itex]\vec{k}_i = k_i \hat{k}_i[/itex]

[itex]\vec{k}_i \, \cdot \, \vec{r} = k_i \hat{k}_i \cdot \vec{r}[/itex]

[itex]\hat{k}_i[/itex] points along the direction that the incident wave travels.

[itex]\hat{k}_i = \cos\theta \hat{z} + \sin\theta \hat{x}[/itex]

talking the dot product of [itex]\hat{k}_i[/itex] with the position vector

[itex]\hat{k}_i \cdot \vec{r} = z\cos\theta \hat{z} + x\sin\theta \hat{x}[/itex] [itex]\vec{k}_i \cdot \vec{r} = k_i \hat{k}_i \cdot \vec{r} = k_i(z\cos\theta \hat{z} + x\sin\theta \hat{x} )[/itex]
 
Yes I figured this out today. None of the books present this well at all. I had to read Cheng's, Griffiths, and Ulaby and work on the vector calculus to figure this and interpreted it out, it's like what you have.

I am surprised good book like Griffiths does not do a good job in this particular section.

Notice the nomenclature of the E field is deceiving too. They all use ##\vec E_I(\vec r,t)##. But in fact ##\vec r=\hat xx+\hat yy+\hat zz## is not the direction of the propagation. ##\vec r## is only used to provide the c,y and z terms by the dot product. If it is according to Ulaby that I scanned, it should be ##\vec E_I(\vec x_i,t)## as ##\vec x_i## is the direction of propagation of the ##\vec E_I##.

Thanks