Basically that is a representation of the inverse square law of EM propagation. Each doubling of your distance from source equates to a four fold decrease in intensity.
Hello,
This is not a homework question! I am simply trying to understand for my own amusement. A while back I synched Solidworks and Excel, and am using this to create 3d models of different things such as dipoles for visual interpretation.
So in doing this I needed to find potential...
In this formula, GRX and GTX are the receive and transmit antenna gains (respectively), d is the distance between the antennas, λ is wavelength, and k = 2π/λ is the wave number. The reason for writing Friis’s law in a non-standard way (using wave number) will become clear momentarily. The upshot...
I knew there was a misunderstanding on this topic because I was on my phone and could not present my case well, let me gather some things and Ill post again a complete answer to what I found for my question.
Got cut off... Radius 1.5, say the say the wave length is such that the quarter (90 degrees) periphery falls at radius 6. At r=3 both electric at in inverse sqare and magnetic at inverse cube, are equal both in terms of intensity (0.707) in terms of phase relation and square vs cube...
Thanks so much for the reply! Let me be more specific. Say I have a sphere, free space capacitance. Radius is .75. Around the equator you have an inductance (disk, close approximation for modeling cube ratio at close distance) periphery 1.5.
inverse square vs cube = ?
If the electric field falls off at the inverse square ratio, and magnetic at inverse cube, does EM radiation dissipate at 1/r^5 ratio for circularly polarized waves?
I am making a large capacitor bank (I guess not that big, but enough to kill you a couple times over) and I need a little help with charging it. I am using 450 volt 1200uf electrolytic capacitors. I have them in two sub banks of 4 wired in parallel, and connected to each other in series. I only...