f*******a
发帖数: 80 | 1 I have been TAing undergraduate engineering courses in electromagnetic
theory. I have looked at several textbooks on this subject, Johnk's, Cheng's
, Ulaby's. These authors start the discussion of the electric field with E,
the field intensity. When they start the discussion of the magnetic field,
they often use B, the flux density, instead of H, the field intensity.
Why do they use H? Wouldn't H provide a better analogy with E? I posed this
question to a prof. He says it's a tradition, but no p | R******y
发帖数: 651 | 2 看David.Griffiths 的电动力学。
's
,
this
【在 f*******a 的大作中提到】
: I have been TAing undergraduate engineering courses in electromagnetic
: theory. I have looked at several textbooks on this subject, Johnk's, Cheng's
: , Ulaby's. These authors start the discussion of the electric field with E,
: the field intensity. When they start the discussion of the magnetic field,
: they often use B, the flux density, instead of H, the field intensity.
: Why do they use H? Wouldn't H provide a better analogy with E? I posed this
: question to a prof. He says it's a tradition, but no p
| I*S
发帖数: 203 | 3 It is tradition. Just the names of E and H are analogous, while in essence E
and B are both directly related to electromagnetic force on charged particl
es.
's
,
this
【在 f*******a 的大作中提到】
: I have been TAing undergraduate engineering courses in electromagnetic
: theory. I have looked at several textbooks on this subject, Johnk's, Cheng's
: , Ulaby's. These authors start the discussion of the electric field with E,
: the field intensity. When they start the discussion of the magnetic field,
: they often use B, the flux density, instead of H, the field intensity.
: Why do they use H? Wouldn't H provide a better analogy with E? I posed this
: question to a prof. He says it's a tradition, but no p
| f*******a
发帖数: 80 | |
|
