Simple Differential problem (help)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jennifer_88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving a differential equation related to heat transfer, specifically d/dx[(k+aT)dT/dx]=0, with boundary conditions T(x=0)=To and T(x=L)=TL. The user has derived an equation that is quadratic in T but struggles to proceed due to a lack of confidence in differential equation knowledge. A suggestion is made that the user's difficulties are more related to algebra than differential equations, emphasizing the need to rearrange the equation into standard form for solving. The conversation highlights the importance of mastering both differential equations and algebra for future problems in heat transfer. Overall, the user seeks guidance to improve their understanding and skills in these areas.
Jennifer_88
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am working out a heat transfer problem but I've to solve the Differential equation in order to keep going on but it's been a long time since i did any Differential. your help will be appreciated.

d/dx[(k+aT)dT/dx]=0

i need thins in terms of T(x)

my boundary conditions T(x=0)=To
T(x=L)=TL

my work

d/dx[(k+aT)dT/dx]=0
(k+aT)dT=C1dx

KT+(a/2)T^2=C1x+C2

rearranging

T^2+(2/a)*k*T=(2/a)*(C1x+C2)

lets call (2/a)=z

T^2+z*k*T=z*(C1x+C2)


i could not get further from here due to lack of my Deferential equation knowledge. I really need to learn this as I'm expecting to see a lot more of this later and i actually took differential long time ago. any help would be appreciated


thanks in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Jennifer_88 said:
Hi,

I am working out a heat transfer problem but I've to solve the Differential equation in order to keep going on but it's been a long time since i did any Differential. your help will be appreciated.

d/dx[(k+aT)dT/dx]=0
Since the derivative, with respect to x, of the quantity in brackets is zero, then the stuff in brackets must be a constant.

I.e., (k + aT)dT/dx = C

This equation is separable, so put all the terms involving T and dT on one side, and all the terms involving x and dx on the other side, and integrate.
Jennifer_88 said:
i need thins in terms of T(x)

my boundary conditions T(x=0)=To
T(x=L)=TL

my work

d/dx[(k+aT)dT/dx]=0
(k+aT)dT=C1dx

KT+(a/2)T^2=C1x+C2

rearranging

T^2+(2/a)*k*T=(2/a)*(C1x+C2)
This equation is quadratic in T, so use the quadratic formula to solve for T.

Write the equation in standard form, as
T^2+(2k/a)*T - (2/a)(C1x+C2) = 0





Jennifer_88 said:
lets call (2/a)=z

T^2+z*k*T=z*(C1x+C2)


i could not get further from here due to lack of my Deferential equation knowledge. I really need to learn this as I'm expecting to see a lot more of this later and i actually took differential long time ago. any help would be appreciated
Where you got stumped doesn't have anything to do with differential equations - this is pretty much plain algebra.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top