Recent content by Dimani4

yes, I understand the tangential boundary conditions for electric field as for the magnetic field. ## H_i +H_r=H_t ## but still the question of reflection and transmission coefficient definition still remains. This pdf file presents very good detailed analysis for the TE and TM case but this...

yes. the derivations of the formulas are right but they didn't explain why these definitions (transmission and reflection coefficients) are not consistent. the coefficients are also right but I still don't understand (they say "we can define". you can't say "we can define" because this...

Thank you for your quick response but here I guess z is transverse to the incidence plane (z actually is in this plane), y is perpendicular to this plane and as x is also perpendicular as you can see here; Please explain it in more details because I never paid attention on this point till...

Let's take TE case. The reflection coefficient for magnetic field is defined as : Transmission coefficient is: My question is why reflection coefficient is not Γ(H)=Hr/Hi but Hzr/Hzi or vise a versa why transmission coefficient is not τ(H)=Hzt/Hzi but Ht/Hi ? I see that the definitions here...

you can't say it. take a look for example the polarization for H in the TE case or polarization of E in the TM case. Their polarization is dependent for the angles of incidence (θi) and transmission (θt). My confusion or "misunderstanding" is why the definition for transmission and reflection...

Yes, the subscript here means transmitted but also a total. Check it out the pdf file I've attached (for instance page 180 for TM).

Hi, I have a question in definition of reflection/transmission coefficients in TE/TM modes. Let's see TE polarization case. The reflection coefficient for the magnetic field is defined as: However the transmission coefficient for the magnetic field is defined as: Now, let's see the TM mode...

I think I got my mistake. When I define the coordinates system according right hand rule to find the exact directions of the Electric and Magnetic field I should use again the right hand rule to find out the direction of the magnetic field according the formula (H=βi*Ei/ωμ) where β is the...

Sorry for erratum, but for TM case the right hand rule works as it depicted in the Picture3. If we assume the magnetic field enters to incidence plane (X) then the electric field E should be directed as it shown in Picture3. But again the question remains for the TE case (Picture1). If we choose...

Hello people, I'm a little bit confused about how to define the polarization direction for TM/TE mode. Take a look at the TE mode picture I found in some place. Picture1 The Cartesian system of coordinate (XYZ) here is chosen by the right hand rule. Picture2 But how we chose the direction...

You are absolutely right. Finally I understood the point I couldn't understand. why we can't build perpetual mobile with irreversible machine. Now I understand. We need to do work to get back 10kg to the initial state. This is it. I understand why reversible machines you can't build. Because in...

I think I know where I was wrong. Forget all the losses. I forgot about the 10kg. After the action (Figure 1 case2) 10kg is below the balanced state. To back it to the balanced state (horizontal state) we should apply work against the gravitational energy to put it back. There is no such a...

Hi, Why do you think so? I neglect it to return this machine to initial horizontal state. But anyway if you place the weights of 5kg and 10kg in the places as depicted in the figure it will always lift the 5kg and lower the 10kg-irreversible behavior.

Hi all, I still have "a many times discussed" problem to understand Feymann's issue about irreversible/reversible machines example. Here is the part from the original text. Here is my questions: 1. Here Feymann talks about the situation when you are not applying any force to rise or lower...

Yes man, you are absolutely right. Sorry I have confused between square and square root.