Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil,
OK, I will 'see' your references and 'raise' my bid to Born and Wolf "Principles of Optics", 7th edition. I recommend section 1.6, "Wave propagation in a stratified medium. Theory of dielectric films". This section runs from page 54 to page 74, and it describes in full detail everything you would want to know about propagation of waves in multilayered structures. There is a disclaimer in the introduction to this section which says, "For the treatment of problems involving only a small number of films it is naturally not necessary to use the general theory, and accordingly we shall later describe an alternative and older method based on the concept of multiple reflections." The reference is to section 7.6 "Multiple-beam interference", which runs from page 359 to page 409. Similar sections are included in the 6th edition of this book, on pages 51 to 70 and 323 to 367 respectively. I am sure you can find one or both of these editions in the TAMU library. I prefer the 7th edition, as it seems easier on the eyes. If you choose not to actually read these references I will tell you that the first section is a full-blown Maxwell's equations treatment, and the second section employs an interfering wave treatment. What I find interesting is that there is not one mention of bouncing energy waves or waves that have disappeared but their energy lives on. If you read your favorite Melles-Griot material carefully without adding your own spin (how else could it be, etc.) you will see that they do not discuss bouncing energy waves either. You will notice that M-G say the energy "appears" in the transmitted wave. This is good, since we like to believe conservation of energy is maintained. M-G do not discuss the mechanism. All of the stuff about bouncing energy rejoining the forward wave is purely in your imagination. I think I have finally figured out the root of the disagreement. Your approach is similar to a one-trick pony. You have latched onto the concept of interference to the exclusion of any other valid approach. As a consequence it becomes *necessary* to imagine such things as bouncing energy waves. The Maxwell's equations approach does not require this sort of crutch. Try it, you might like it. I am quite familiar with both analytical methods, and I am comfortable in using either one. The key is understanding when a given analytical technique will be the most useful, most direct, most intuitive, and so on. I have nothing against interference, but its misapplication is like using a pipe wrench to drive a nail while a hammer is right at hand. 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: If that is beyond your comprehension, just say so but, in reality, those interfering component waves obey the laws of physics as explained in _Optics_, by Hecht and on the Melles-Groit web page: http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Complex Z0 [Corrected] | Antenna | |||
Derivation of the Reflection Coefficient? | Antenna | |||
The Cecilian Gambit, a variation on the Galilean Defense revisited | Antenna |