transverse field

Resolving fields into components parallel to the reflecting plane

March 6, 2015 ece1229 No comments , , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

In order to apply the Fresnel equations, the field components have to be resolved into components where either the electric field or the magnetic field is parallel to the plane of reflection. The geometry of this, with the wave vector direction \( \kcap \) and the electric and magnetic field phasors perpendicular to that direction is sketched in fig. 1.

resolvingFieldsIncidentOnObliquePlaneFig1

fig. 1. Field components relative to reflecting plane

 

If the incident wave is a plane wave, or equivalently a far field spherical wave, it will have the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:20}
\BH = \inv{\mu_0} \kcap \cross \BE,
\end{equation}

with the field directions and wave vector directions satisfying

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:60}
\Ecap \cross \Hcap = \kcap
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:80}
\Ecap \cdot \kcap = 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:100}
\Hcap \cdot \kcap = 0.
\end{equation}

The key to resolving the fields into components parallel to the plane of reflection lies in the observation that the cross product of the plane normal \( \ncap \) and the incident wave vector direction \( \kcap \) lies in that plane. With

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:140}
\pcap = \frac{\kcap \cross \ncap}{\Abs{\kcap \cross \ncap}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:160}
\qcap = \kcap \cross \pcap,
\end{equation}

the field directions can be resolved into components

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:200}
\BE = \lr{ \BE \cdot \pcap } \pcap + \lr{ \BE \cdot \qcap } \qcap = E_\parallel \pcap + E_\perp \qcap
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:220}
\BH = \lr{ \BH \cdot \pcap } \pcap + \lr{ \BH \cdot \qcap } \qcap = H_\parallel \pcap + H_\perp \qcap.
\end{equation}

This subdivides the fields into two pairs, one with the electric field parallel to the reflection plane

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:240}
\begin{aligned}
\BE_1 &= \lr{ \BE \cdot \pcap } \pcap = E_\parallel \pcap \\
\BH_1 &= \lr{ \BH \cdot \qcap } \qcap = H_\perp \qcap,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

and one with the magnetic field parallel to the reflection plane

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:260}
\begin{aligned}
\BH_2 &= \lr{ \BH \cdot \pcap } \pcap = H_\parallel \pcap \\
\BE_2 &= \lr{ \BE \cdot \qcap } \qcap = E_\perp \qcap.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This is most of what we need to proceed with the reflection and transmission analysis. The only task remaining is to determine the reflection angle.

Using a pencil with the tip on the table I was able to convince myself by observation that there is always a normal plane of incidence regardless of any oblique angle that the ray hits the reflecting surface. This was, for some reason, not intuitively obvious to me. Having done that, the geometry must be reduced to what is sketched in fig. 2.

resolvingAngleOfIncidenceFig1

fig. 2. Angle of incidence determination

 

Once \( \pcap \) has been determined, regardless of it’s orientation in the reflection plane, the component of \( \kcap \) that is normal, directed towards, the plane of reflection is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:280}
\kcap – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap } \pcap,
\end{equation}

with (squared) length

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:300}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ \kcap – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap } \pcap }^2
&=
1 + \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap }^2 – 2 \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap }^2 \\
&=
1 – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap }^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The angle of incidence, relative to the normal to the reflection plane, follows from

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:320}
\begin{aligned}
\cos\theta
&= \kcap \cdot \frac{
\kcap – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap } \pcap }{
\sqrt{
1 – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap }^2
}
} \\
&=
\sqrt{
1 – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \pcap }^2
},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Expanding the dot product above gives

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:360}
\begin{aligned}
\kcap \cdot \pcap’
&=
\kcap \cdot \lr{ \pcap \cross \ncap } \\
&=
\frac{1}{\Abs{\kcap \cross \ncap} } \kcap \cdot \lr{ \lr{\kcap \cross \ncap} \cross \ncap },
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

where

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:380}
\begin{aligned}
\kcap \cdot \lr{ \lr{\kcap \cross \ncap} \cross \ncap }
&=
k_r \epsilon_{r s t} \lr{\kcap \cross \ncap}_s n_t \\
&=
k_r \epsilon_{r s t} \epsilon_{s a b} k_a n_b n_t \\
&=
-k_r \delta_{r t}^{[a b]} k_a n_b n_t \\
&=
-k_r n_t \lr{ k_r n_t – k_t n_r } \\
&=
-1 + \lr{ \kcap \cdot \ncap}^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

That gives

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:400}
\begin{aligned}
\kcap \cdot \pcap’
&=
\frac{-1 + \lr{ \kcap \cdot \ncap}^2}{\sqrt{1 – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \ncap}^2} } \\
&=
-\sqrt{1 – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \ncap}^2},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

or

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:420}
\begin{aligned}
\cos\theta
&= \sqrt{ 1 – \lr{-\sqrt{1 – \lr{ \kcap \cdot \ncap}^2}}^2 } \\
&= \sqrt{ \lr{ \kcap \cdot \ncap}^2 } \\
&= \kcap \cdot \ncap.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This surprisingly simple result makes so much sense, it is an awful admission of stupidity that I went through all the vector algebra to get it instead of just writing it down directly.

The end result is the reflection angle is given by

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:340}
\boxed{
\theta = \cos^{-1} \kcap \cdot \ncap,
}
\end{equation}

where the reflection plane normal should off the back surface to get the sign right. The only detail left is the vector direction of the reflected ray (as well as the direction for the transmitted ray if that is of interest). The reflected ray direction flips the sign of the normal component of the ray

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:resolvingFieldsIncidentOnPlane:440}
\begin{aligned}
\kcap’
&= -\lr{\kcap \cdot \ncap} \ncap + \lr{ \kcap \wedge \ncap} \ncap \\
&= -\lr{\kcap \cdot \ncap} \ncap + \kcap – \lr{ \ncap \kcap} \cdot \ncap \\
&= \kcap -2 \lr{\kcap \cdot \ncap} \ncap.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Here the sign of the normal doesn’t matter since it only occurs quadratically.

This now supplies everything needed for the application of the Fresnel equations to determine the reflected ray characteristics of an arbitrarily polarized incident field.

Reciprocity theorem: background

February 19, 2015 ece1229 No comments , , , , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

The class slides presented a derivation of the reciprocity theorem, a theorem that contained the integral of

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:360}
\int \lr{ \BE^{(a)} \cross \BH^{(b)} – \BE^{(b)} \cross \BH^{(a)} } \cdot d\BS = \cdots
\end{equation}

over a surface, where the RHS was a volume integral involving the fields and (electric and magnetic) current sources.
The idea was to consider two different source loading configurations of the same system, and to show that the fields and sources in the two configurations can be related.

To derive the result in question, a simple way to start is to look at the divergence of the difference of cross products above. This will require the phasor form of the two cross product Maxwell’s equations

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:100}
\spacegrad \cross \BE = – (\BM + j \omega \mu_0 \BH) % \BM^{(a)} + j \omega \mu_0 \BH^{(a)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:120}
\spacegrad \cross \BH = \BJ + j \omega \epsilon_0 \BE, % \BJ^{(a)} + j \omega \epsilon_0 \BE^{(a)}
\end{equation}

so the divergence is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:380}
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad \cdot
\lr{ \BE^{(a)} \cross \BH^{(b)} – \BE^{(b)} \cross \BH^{(a)} }
&=
\BH^{(b)} \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \cross \BE^{(a)} } -\BE^{(a)} \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \cross \BH^{(b)} } \\
&-\BH^{(a)} \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \cross \BE^{(b)} } +\BE^{(b)} \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \cross \BH^{(a)} } \\
&=
-\BH^{(b)} \cdot \lr{ \BM^{(a)} + j \omega \mu_0 \BH^{(a)} } -\BE^{(a)} \cdot \lr{ \BJ^{(b)} + j \omega \epsilon_0 \BE^{(b)} } \\
&+\BH^{(a)} \cdot \lr{ \BM^{(b)} + j \omega \mu_0 \BH^{(b)} } +\BE^{(b)} \cdot \lr{ \BJ^{(a)} + j \omega \epsilon_0 \BE^{(a)} }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The non-source terms cancel, leaving

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:440}
\boxed{
\spacegrad \cdot
\lr{ \BE^{(a)} \cross \BH^{(b)} – \BE^{(b)} \cross \BH^{(a)} }
=
-\BH^{(b)} \cdot \BM^{(a)} -\BE^{(a)} \cdot \BJ^{(b)}
+\BH^{(a)} \cdot \BM^{(b)} +\BE^{(b)} \cdot \BJ^{(a)}
}
\end{equation}

Should we be suprised to have a relation of this form? Probably not, given that the energy momentum relationship between the fields and currents of a single source has the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:n}
\PD{t}{}\frac{\epsilon_0}{2} \left(\BE^2 + c^2 \BB^2\right) + \spacegrad \cdot \inv{\mu_0}(\BE \cross \BB) = -\BE \cdot \BJ.
\end{equation}

(this is without magnetic sources).

This suggests that the reciprocity theorem can be expressed more generally in terms of the energy-momentum tensor.

far field integral form

Employing the divergence theorem over a sphere the identity above takes the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:480}
\int_S
\lr{ \BE^{(a)} \cross \BH^{(b)} – \BE^{(b)} \cross \BH^{(a)} } \cdot \rcap dS
=
\int_V \lr{
-\BH^{(b)} \cdot \BM^{(a)} -\BE^{(a)} \cdot \BJ^{(b)}
+\BH^{(a)} \cdot \BM^{(b)} +\BE^{(b)} \cdot \BJ^{(a)}
}
dV
\end{equation}

In the far field, the cross products are strictly radial. That surface integral can be written as

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:500}
\begin{aligned}
\int_S
\lr{ \BE^{(a)} \cross \BH^{(b)} – \BE^{(b)} \cross \BH^{(a)} } \cdot \rcap dS
&=
\inv{\mu_0}
\int_S
\lr{ \BE^{(a)} \cross \lr{ \rcap \cross \BE^{(b)}} – \BE^{(b)} \cross \lr{ \rcap \cross \BE^{(a)}} } \cdot \rcap dS \\
&=
\inv{\mu_0}
\int_S
\lr{ \BE^{(a)} \cdot \BE^{(b)} – \BE^{(b)} \cdot \BE^{(a)}
}
dS \\
&= 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The above expansions used \ref{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:540} to expand the terms of the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:560}
\lr{ \BA \cross \lr{ \rcap \cross \BC } } \cdot \rcap
= \BA \cdot \BC -\lr{ \BA \cdot \rcap } \lr{ \BC \cdot \rcap },
\end{equation}

in which only the first dot product survives due to the transverse nature of the fields.

So in the far field we have a direct relation between the fields and sources of two source configurations of the same system of the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:580}
\boxed{
\int_V \lr{
\BH^{(a)} \cdot \BM^{(b)} +\BE^{(b)} \cdot \BJ^{(a)}
}
dV
=
\int_V \lr{
\BH^{(b)} \cdot \BM^{(a)} +\BE^{(a)} \cdot \BJ^{(b)}
}
dV
}
\end{equation}

Application to antenna

This is the underlying reason that we are able to pose the problem of what an antenna can recieve, in terms of what the antenna can transmit.

More on that to come.

Identities

Lemma: Divergence of a cross product.

\begin{equation}\label{thm:polarizationReview:400}
\spacegrad \cdot \lr{ \BA \cross \BB } =
\BB \lr{\spacegrad \cross \BA}
-\BA \lr{\spacegrad \cross \BB}.
\end{equation}

Proof.

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:420}
\begin{aligned}
\spacegrad \cdot \lr{ \BA \cross \BB }
&=
\partial_a \epsilon_{a b c} A_b B_c \\
&=
\epsilon_{a b c} (\partial_a A_b )B_c

\epsilon_{b a c} A_b (\partial_a B_c) \\
&=
\BB \cdot (\spacegrad \cross \BA)
-\BB \cdot (\spacegrad \cross \BA).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Lemma: Triple cross product dotted
\begin{equation}\label{thm:polarizationReview:520}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ \BA \cross \lr{ \BB \cross \BC } } \cdot \BD
=
\lr{ \BA \cdot \BC } \lr{ \BB \cdot \BD }
-\lr{ \BA \cdot \BB } \lr{ \BC \cdot \BD }
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Proof.

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reciprocityTheorem:540}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ \BA \cross \lr{ \BB \cross \BC } } \cdot \BD
&=
\epsilon_{a b c} A_b \epsilon_{r s c } B_r C_s D_a \\
&=
\delta_{[a b]}^{r s}
A_b B_r C_s D_a \\
&=
A_s B_r C_s D_r
-A_r B_r C_s D_s \\
&=
\lr{ \BA \cdot \BC } \lr{ \BB \cdot \BD }
-\lr{ \BA \cdot \BB } \lr{ \BC \cdot \BD }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}