Energy flow vector of the electromagnetic field

Wallace, G.; O’Connell, R. F.

doi:10.1139/p80-101

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Authors from the other camp often argue that tampering with the Poynting vector disturbs relations that must exist, because of general principles of Lorentzian dynamics, between the energy flux and the momentum flux. Pugh EM and Pugh GE, for instance, describe a “simple configuration where angular momentum can be conserved only through the Poynting vector,” which according to them “should help dispel doubts about its reality.” Similar arguments can be found in the literature and were deemed by Feynman to dismiss the “repugnant notion” objection: “this mystic circulating flow of energy which at first seemed so ridiculous, is absolutely necessary. There is really a momentum flow.…”

Section: The Poynting Vector Fieldsupporting

confidence: 66%

A note on the uniqueness of the Poynting vector and of the Maxwell tensor

Bossavit

2016

Int J Numerical Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many alternatives to the classical Poynting vector P have been proposed, but they lack a property of locality that makes P special and makes it the right choice to represent the energy flux. We give a geometrical proof of this uniqueness. Similar considerations apply to the Maxwell stress tensor. KEYWORDS energy flux, Maxwell tensor, momentum flux, Poynting vector 1 x elc , and B mag [resp. D elc ]. This way, the constitutive laws are H(x) = B mag (x, B(x)) and E(x) = D elc (x, D(x)) at point x. This excludes nonlocal dependencies, in space or time (as would happen in case of hysteresis), between the four fields, while allowing to deal with anisotropies and nonlinearities. (The linear isotropic case corresponds to mag (x, B) = 1 / 2 (x)|B| 2 and elc (x, D) = 1 / 2 |D| 2 / (x), where Int J Numer Model. 2018;31:e2214.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jnm

show abstract

Section: The Poynting Vector Fieldsupporting

confidence: 66%

A note on the uniqueness of the Poynting vector and of the Maxwell tensor

Bossavit

2016

Int J Numerical Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is readily verified that the proposals listed in Wallace and O'Connell (1980) that the choice of Hines gives half the correct radiation rate.) On the other hand, none of the proposals satisfy the hypothesis that the components of S in the y and z directions vanish for a charge distribution in uniform motion.…”

Section: E X H E ~( E 'mentioning

confidence: 70%

Poynting in the wrong direction?

Gough¹

1982

Eur. J. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are a number of well known reasons for believing that the Poynting vector does not give the rate of flow of electromagnetic energy at a point. These are critically discussed. An alternative expression for this rate of flow has been sought by considering a distribution of charges all moving with the same velocity, and insisting that the energy flow should have this velocity. No alternative has been found which satisfies this requirement, and also gives the correct result for radiation from an oscillating electric dipole.

show abstract

Comparison of Poynting’s vector and the power flow used in electrical engineering

Mörée

Leijon

2022

AIP Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper will analyze how the energy flux of Poynting’s vector is compared to the power flow in electrical engineering, where the power, instead, is defined by voltages and currents. There are alternatives to Poynting’s energy flux vector that agree more with circuit theory methods such that the energy flow is in the current conductor and not in the insulation surrounding it. One such basic formulation would only consist of the total current density and the voltage potential, but it would need an alternative theorem for energy transfer. Another formulation proposed by Slepian would instead still agree with Poynting’s energy transfer theorem, but it needs to add the power of alternating magnetic vector potential. The alternatives to Poynting’s vector may better illustrate the energy flow in electrical engineering, but two things could be considered in their generality. First, since they are expressed by potentials, they are gauge invariant and depend on the definition of the potentials. Second, Poynting’s vector is used to formulate the electromagnetic momentum, and any alternative energy flow vectors would not. These two notes are of minor importance in electrical engineering, and the alternatives could be used as good alternatives for describing power flow. The main purpose of this paper is to bridge the differences between the physical theory of energy flux and the methods in electrical power engineering. This could simplify the use of energy flux and Poynting’s vector in engineering problems.

show abstract

Energy flow vector of the electromagnetic field

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

A note on the uniqueness of the Poynting vector and of the Maxwell tensor

A note on the uniqueness of the Poynting vector and of the Maxwell tensor

Poynting in the wrong direction?

Comparison of Poynting’s vector and the power flow used in electrical engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About