Fresnel Equations at Normal Incidence

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 23

  • @Akshay-xo5iy
    @Akshay-xo5iy 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    A big round of applause for you sir. I have been following Computational Photonics book by Marek S Wartek and had a hard time understanding the topics as no geometry was involved. Now you have made my life simpler.

  • @alan262
    @alan262 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The internet states that Fresnel is pronounced "Fray nel". You do a nice job. And don't forget Einstein's statement about simplicity.

  • @haya4895
    @haya4895 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    thank you so!
    do you have a video explaining the antireflection coating?

  • @amvin234
    @amvin234 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    are we missing a factor of n_2 for the E_t equation?

  • @panthadipmaji1433
    @panthadipmaji1433 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Why exponential terms will cancel out? I think there is a term k.z. But for different medium k will be different because k=(w/v),where w is the angular frequency of the wave and v is the velocity of the wave in the medium and w is same but v is different for different medium.

  • @infinity-and-regards
    @infinity-and-regards 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thanks for the video! So a good mirror would have n2 >> n1?

  • @sl2357
    @sl2357 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you! At z = 0, why time dependence cancels out, please? OK, the phase term becomes a constant?

    • @JordanEdmundsEECS
      @JordanEdmundsEECS  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes, when we take ratios of amplitudes the e^(iwt) term will cancel out, so we usually ignore it.

    • @sl2357
      @sl2357 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@JordanEdmundsEECS Thank you!

  • @fmazzelli5264
    @fmazzelli5264 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you for this video! Suppose we want to calculate R and T for the second interface, external to which is air again, so that, for instance n2=1,5 and n3=1. Can we use the same equations? It appears to me that T becomes greater than 1 and I do not understand how this can be. Thank you very much.

    • @thedarkcider4450
      @thedarkcider4450 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I think it's a mistake, power transmission coefficient is (1-R^2), the part written around minute 13 is wrong and violates power conservation, he needs no multiply T by n2/n1 I guess if u want to state it that way, but i just use T=(1-R^2), this can be proved when you calculate the power of the incident and reflected wave, power = (E x H*)

    • @kangningyu6075
      @kangningyu6075 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thank you, I also think there are some mistakes with transmission coefficient. But it is strange that the lecturer can solve the reflection coefficent correctly by these equations, but not correct for transmission.@@thedarkcider4450

  • @Saptarshi.Sarkar
    @Saptarshi.Sarkar 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Why can't we have E_i = E_r + E_t as the third equation? Won't the magnitude of the Electric field be conserved?

    • @SharifulIslam-sp9xn
      @SharifulIslam-sp9xn 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It will be the violation of boundary conditions.

    • @paulg444
      @paulg444 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Great presentation but there was no explanation or insight regarding the boundary conditions.. it was just stated

  • @sebastianteran3750
    @sebastianteran3750 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Pregunta 1
    Hello, I need your help plz, good video..
    Estimate the approximate output coupling power losses (in percent) from Fresnel reflection at normal incidence in a phosphor/air interface, where the phosphor has an index of 2.3 and air has a refractive index of 1.

  • @valeriereid2337
    @valeriereid2337 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Excellent! Thanks you.

  • @varunpatt
    @varunpatt 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    11:48

  • @RohitSharma-mi8gt
    @RohitSharma-mi8gt 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    do u mean the corkscrew rule ?

  • @sablebonnet2104
    @sablebonnet2104 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    You're the best

  • @jerrylg8087
    @jerrylg8087 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    why Ei=nHi? i think it should be (n/c)Ei=Hi

    • @jordanedmunds4460
      @jordanedmunds4460 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      The n-looking thing is actually the Greek letter eta (the wave impedance), not the refractive index. Good eye!