OSA's Digital Library

Applied Optics

Applied Optics

APPLICATIONS-CENTERED RESEARCH IN OPTICS

  • Vol. 15, Iss. 11 — Nov. 1, 1976
  • pp: 2866–2870

Single strip diffraction: comparison of Kirchhoff theory and geometrical theory with the exact solution in the limit of small glancing angle and width; perpendicular polarization

L. A. DeAcetis, F. S. Einstein, R. A. Juliano, Jr., and I. Lazar  »View Author Affiliations


Applied Optics, Vol. 15, Issue 11, pp. 2866-2870 (1976)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.15.002866


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (477 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

A comparison is made between approximations using the geometrical theory of diffraction (GTD) and Kirchhoff theory and the exact solution using Maxwell’s equations for the case of Fraunhofer diffraction of electromagnetic radiation incident upon a long, thin, perfectly conducting strip with the electric field vector polarized perpendicular to the strip axis. Strip widths from approximately 0.3λ to 3λ are considered. Glancing angles of incidence are taken from 4° to 90°. Irradiances are compared as a function of diffraction angle in the region on the same side of the strip as the incident radiation.

© 1976 Optical Society of America

History
Original Manuscript: October 1, 1975
Published: November 1, 1976

Citation
L. A. DeAcetis, F. S. Einstein, R. A. Juliano, and I. Lazar, "Single strip diffraction: comparison of Kirchhoff theory and geometrical theory with the exact solution in the limit of small glancing angle and width; perpendicular polarization," Appl. Opt. 15, 2866-2870 (1976)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-15-11-2866


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. L. A. DeAcetis, I. Lazar, Appl. Opt. 9, 1691 (1970). The authors point out several errors in this publication: (a) the captions under Figs. 3 and 10 should be interchanged, likewise those under Figs. 4 and 7, 5 and 8, and 6 and 9; (b) the strip width indicated in the caption for Fig. 10 should read 1.424λ, not 1.24λ; (c) Eq. (6) should read the same as Eq. (4) of this paper; (d) in the Results section, the fourth sentence should read “In Figs. 2 through 6, … for the case where u = 84°.”
  2. B. Sieger, Ann. Phys. 27, 626 (1908).
  3. P. Morse, P. Rubenstein, Phys. Rev. 54, 895 (1938).
  4. M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1970), Chap. 8.
  5. J. B. Keller, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 116 (1962).
  6. J. Bowman, T. Senior, P. Uslenghi, Electromagnetic and Acoustical Scattering by Simple Shapes (Elsevier, New York, 1969), Chap. 4.
  7. I. Lazar, Ph.D. thesis, New York University (1962) (Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich., 63-7193).
  8. Computation Laboratory of the National Applied Mathematics Laboratories, National Bureau of Standards, Tables Relating to Mathieu Functions (Columbia U.P., New York, 1951).
  9. J. Yu, R. Rudduck, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. AP-15, 662 (1967). The sine terms in their Eqs. (2a) should have for their arguments (θ + θ0)/2.

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited